Our NRC is dysfunctional!

[Eddie Haskell]

I just attended a lecture about the current state of our NRC.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=8755

The scientists who have to provide a basis for safety decisions are in an uproar. The commission chairman has taken over the decision making process and is making storage safety decisions based on politics rather than safety. Spent fuel rods need to be safety contained for up to one million years. We've seen how well on-site water-tank storage works in an earthquake (Fukushima) and we've seen how earthquake design criteria can be inadequate (the North Anna build criteria was well below the recent quake) ... in Virginia. If we can't keep politics out of containment, we need to shut down all nuclear power plants now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/dominion-says-north-anna-ready_n_1024055.html

[dtexdem]

1. And even if all plants were shut down today, we would still face the storage problem.

We have a problem much bigger than can be answered with "shut the plants."

[Eddie Haskell]

2. First step to eliminating a problem

Don't let it grow any bigger.

[Confusious]

4. There are solutions

But it's better to have a problem to scare people.

You don't see anti nuclear groups giving money to researchers looking for ways to destroy the waste.

[Confusious]

3. A million years?

I thought this was the science forum. Has anyone taken a BASIC chemistry course?

The more highly radioactive, the shorter it will be radioactive.

The less radioactive, the longer it will be radioactive.

So to put that another way, highly radioactive material will drop to a low level radioactivity in around 200 years.

Once it's at that point, the radioactivity will have dropped to such a state as to be non threatening.

I really get tired of science illiterates.

[bananas]

5. The National Academy of Sciences said it has to be contained for a million years

I really get tired of science illiterates.

[Confusious]

6. Where? I looked at both articles

neither stated 'a million years'. That was hyperbole from the OP.

you ate it right up, jumping in to defend the statement, regardless of the real facts.

I guess science only counts as long as it doesn't conflict with your cherished beliefs.

[Eddie Haskell]

8. See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow

[Confusious]

9. Usually that means

someone has proven someone wrong.

Where would that be Eddie?

[bananas]

11. It's on their website, they published their recommendations way back in 1995

The NAS said 10,000 years was bullshit happy talk from true believers who couldn't be trusted.
Remember - you just can't trust the nuclear industry!

Read the second bullet point and footnote on page 2 of
"Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards"
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4943&page=2

[Confusious]

12. Government policy, not sceince.

They say a million years, that's when it will be no more radioactive then u 238. 200 years is when the worst radioactivity is gone, and you need no more protection then the little white suit to walk around them when they are exposed, mostly to keep from inhaling the heavy metals.

[bananas]

14. Wrong. nt

[Confusious]

15. Great Proof!

you should submit that to a science journal. I'm sure they would declare the problem solved!

[bananas]

13. Here's a news article about the 2008 EPA regulations with pro- and con- statements

"The nuclear industry was pleased with the new standard."

That should tell you something...

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/green/EPA_s_Yucca_Mountain_Radiation_Standard_Controversial.html

EPA's Yucca Mountain Radiation Standard Controversial

WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2008 (ENS) -

<snip>

"The Yucca Mountain standards are in line with approaches used in the international radioactive waste management community," the agency said, announcing the regulation on Tuesday.

<snip>

Be consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences by establishing a radiological protection standard for this facility at the time of peak dose up to one million years after disposal.

<snip>

The new standards drew opposition from environmentalists and from U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a long-standing opponent of storing radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain.

<snip>

"The EPA has collaborated with the Department of Energy to tweak a standard that a federal Court of Appeals threw out in 2001 because it failed to comply with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and would have left Nevadans dangerously unprotected against radioactive contamination," he said.

<snip>

The nuclear industry was pleased with the new standard.

<snip>

[Confusious]

16. You're like an anti-vaccer

Always worrying about the evil vaccines causing autism, when you should be looking elsewhere.

It's not the radioactivity, it's the heavy metals.

That's also an old article. There's been much more disagreement about yucca mountain since then.

[bananas]

18. LOL - You weren't even aware of the million year standard. Get a clue. nt

[Confusious]

22. Like I said, government policy, not science.

Would you think that 'don't ask don't tell' is based in science, or was just a policy.

Not all polices are based on science.

[bananas]

19. This is how anti-science pro-nukes respond, ignore the science and make bullshit ad hominem attacks.

It's always the same.

[Confusious]

21. as usual, you screw up 'ad hominem'

I made a comparison, which is apt.

Ad hominem is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

It's only fallacious if I say something like 'you beat your dog.' It has no bearing on the discussion. My comparison has bearing.

[bananas]

20. I'm glad you admitted you were ignorant of the million year standard

even though it was recommended over 15 years ago.
What's bizarre is that after admitting you don't know what you're talking about,
you go on some bizarre personal attack:

Where? I looked at both articles
Posted by Confusious

neither stated 'a million years'. That was hyperbole from the OP.

you ate it right up, jumping in to defend the statement, regardless of the real facts.

I guess science only counts as long as it doesn't conflict with your cherished beliefs.

No, it wasn't "hyperbole from the OP", it's an old standard which the EPA illegally refused to comply with.

[Confusious]

24. Again you confuse government policy with science.

Ad hominem is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

You lap up everything anti nuke, true or not. So, in this case, it's relevant.

[Eddie Haskell]

7. The one million years came from the NRC's design criteria.

The Yucca Mountain storage facility was designed to safely store spent fuel for one million years. I didn't make it up.

Shortly after the EPA first established these standards in 2001, the nuclear industry, several environmental and public interest groups, and the State of Nevada challenged the standards in court. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found in favor of the Agency on all counts except one: the 10,000 year regulatory time frame. The court ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year compliance period for isolation of radioactive waste was not consistent with National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations and was too short.<41><42> The NAS report had recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years.

EPA's rule

EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule in 2009. The new rule limits radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up to 1,000,000 years after it closes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

[Confusious]

10. That's radiation leakage from yucca mountain

it doesn't mean that the rods will be dangerous for a million years. That's government policy, not science.

( I take part of that back. After 200 years, there is more danger from the heavy metals then the radiation. The heavy metals will always be a danger.)

They say a million years, that's when it will be no more radioactive then u 238. 200 years is when the worst radioactivity is gone, and you need no more protection then the little white suit to walk around them when they are exposed.

[bananas]

17. The OP is wrong, it's not an NRC decision, it's an EPA regulation based on NAS recommendations

The EPA is required by law to follow NAS recommendations.
The NRC wasn't involved, the "lecture" mentioned in the OP was probably part of the nuclear industry PR campaign, part of which is to weaken the NRC by making bullshit attacks on it.

[Eddie Haskell]

29. The lecture was given by an NRC official.

The one million year figure came from the NRC's Yucca Mountain project manager.

[bananas]

30. The NRC is legally required to follow the EPA standards, and changed its regulations to comply.

NRC published it's final regulations ten years ago in 2001,
then had to change them after the EPA standards were changed.

Why did the NRC change its regulations?
Because it's required by law to follow the EPA,
just as the EPA is required by law to follow the NAS.

The 2001 NRC regulations were not based on science,
they were based on 2001 happy-talk at the EPA.
The NRC was legally required to follow the EPA happy-talk.

From the NRC website:

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/licensing/licensing-criteria.html

Licensing Criteria for the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository

On June 13, 2001, EPA published final standards (40 CFR Part 197) for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. On November 2, 2001, NRC published final regulations for Yucca Mountain (10 CFR Part 63) on November 2, 2001. As required by statute, NRC’s regulations are consistent with EPA standards.

The State of Nevada and other petitioners challenged both the EPA standards and the NRC regulations in court. On July 9, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals upheld both EPA's standards and NRC's regulations on all but one of the issues raised by the petitioners. The court disagreed with EPA's decision to adopt a 10,000-year period for compliance with the individual protection standard and NRC's adoption of that 10,000-year compliance period in NRC's implementing regulations. Thus, the court vacated EPA's rule at 40 CFR Part 197 to the extent that it specified a 10,000-year compliance period and remanded the matter to EPA. In response to the remand, EPA issued its proposed revised standards on August 22, 2005, (Federal Register Vol. 70, pages 49014-49065 ), which provide for a separate dose limit (350 mrem/yr) to be applied beyond 10,000 years up to 1 million years. To comply with EnPA and the court's remand, NRC proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 63 on September 8, 2005,
(Federal Register Vol. 70, pages 53313-53320 ).

The NRC has proposed to amend the regulations governing the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The proposed rule would implement the EPA's proposed standards for doses that could occur after 10,000 years up to 1 million years. The proposed rule also specifies a value to be used to represent climate change after 10,000 years, as called by EPA, and specifies that calculations of radiation doses for workers use the same weighting factors that EPA is proposing for calculating individual doses to members of the public. The comment period expired on December 7, 2005. Following review of the public comments and finalization by the EPA, NRC expects to finalize its regulations.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 04, 2011

[bananas]

23. The nuclear industry has a major PR campaign trying to spin public opinion

The "lecture" you went to was probably part of a PR campaign by the nuclear industry.
The attack on the NRC is to weaken the NRC and blame "too much government regulation" on their problems.
The NRC had nothing to do with the million year requirement, it's an EPA requirement based on NAS recommendations.

[bananas]

25. Watch out for Nuclear Nayirah

The nuclear industry has hired one of the dirtiest sleaziest PR companies: Hill & Knowlton.
One of their sleaziest campaigns was to sell the first Gulf War to congress and the American people.

They had the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador lie to congress on live TV, pretending to be a nurse,
falsely claiming that she saw Iraqi soldiers throw babies from incubators:

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf
Excerpted from Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, Chapter 10

<snip>

Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice Department chose not to enforce it.

<snip>

In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84

At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.

If Nayirah's outrageous lie had been exposed at the time it was told, it might have at least caused some in Congress and the news media to soberly reevaluate the extent to which they were being skillfully manipulated to support military action. Public opinion was deeply divided on Bush's Gulf policy. As late as December 1990, a New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 48 percent of the American people wanted Bush to wait before taking any action if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by Bush's January 15 deadline.85 On January 12, the US Senate voted by a narrow, five-vote margin to support the Bush administration in a declaration of war. Given the narrowness of the vote, the babies-thrown-from-incubators story may have turned the tide in Bush's favor.

<snip>

[Confusious]

26. From the NAS report

“We note that although the selection of a time period of applicability has scientific elements, it also has policy aspects that we have not addressed. For example, EPA might choose to establish consistent policies for managing risks from disposal of both long-lived hazardous non-radioactive materials and radioactive materials.

funny how they pointed out "long-lived hazardous non-radioactive materials" and didn't point out 'long lived radioactive materials' don't cha think?

[bananas]

27. LOL, it says "BOTH long-lived hazardous non-radioactive materials AND RADIOACTIVE materials"

as in "BOTH":
"both long-lived hazardous non-radioactive materials and radioactive materials.
:rofl:

[Confusious]

28. Not suprising you would say that

That filter is screwed on tight.

These are scientists. If it meant what you want it to, it would say "both long-lived hazardous non-radioactive materials and long-lived radioactive materials.' or ' both non-radioactive materials and radioactive materials that are long-lived and hazardous".

another point: Hazardous radioactive materials is kind of repetitive, don't you think? I mean, you seem to think that any and all radioactivity is hazardous, so why repeat themselves? These are PHd's.

Unless you're saying they're sloppy?

No, it means exactly how it reads " both -> (long-lived hazardous non-radioactive materials) and (radioactive materials). The "long-lived hazardous" only applies to the non-radioactive materials.

Not very good at English either, are you? That's OK, I've read enough for two. (Probably more like 4 actually)

( Taking a look at in another light, if I said "both the blue car and horse" You're saying the horse is blue too. You don't have enough information to say the horse is blue. Horses aren't usually blue. FAIL )