Anyone Thinking Of Leaving Utah By 2007?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Hi everyone...I thought I would drop in for a short visit here...

This question is especially for those of you who live in the SLC area.

I was wondering what you guys thought about the 40,000 tons of nuclear waste they plan on storing nearby SLC in 2007.

I've been following this story for awhile, and finally have decided this is something to be concerned about...I am seriously worried about the safety of my family.

Has anyone here thought about moving away because of this or other environmental issues?

But I am also wondering if this is just a bunch of environmentalists panicking for no reason?

Anyone have the facts?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Sorry for the duplicate post...I got an error...

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Conspiracy Theory:

Does anyone think that the government has chosen this Nuclear Waste site because they consider the Mormons to be acceptable casualties? After all, the Christian Fundamentalists do have alot of say in what goes on in Washington.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

No one is concerned about this?

At least give me your opinions!

I only have two years to pack my bags and sell my house!

[DisRuptive1]

The government isn't going to knowingly radiate the populace. Relax buddy.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 04:11 PM

The government isn't going to knowingly radiate the populace.  Relax buddy.

The key word is "knowingly".

Are we confident the government never makes mistakes?

What about when they tested the Atomic Bomb? I read that this caused cancer and other problems for lots of little Nevada and Utah kids.

Read this:

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/sview/1,3329...50010204,00.htm

It is written in The Lord's newspaper so it must be true.

[DisRuptive1]

What's in the nuclear waste? What's the half-life of the most dangerous parts of the waste? And what method is going to be used to store it? Is it going to be used at all in one of those half-nuclear power plants?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 04:18 PM

What's in the nuclear waste?  What's the half-life of the most dangerous parts of the waste?  And what method is going to be used to store it?

Those are the facts I want to to know...I know nothing about radiation, so I have to ask people for that information in order to make an educated decision of whether to stay or leave.

Is it going to be used at all in one of those half-nuclear power plants?

They are building power plants here too?

I thought they were just storing 40,000 tons of waste.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Mar 24 2005, 03:16 PM

Conspiracy Theory:

Does anyone think that the government has chosen this Nuclear Waste site because they consider the Mormons to be acceptable casualties? After all, the Christian Fundamentalists do have alot of say in what goes on in Washington.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Utah has a whole-lotta-nuthin', just like Nevada and eastern California.

There is a lot of misinformation about nuclear waste. First off, it can't go boom -- it's not enriched enough, like the U-235 they use in bombs. Second, even though it can do really nasty things to you if you get really close to enough of it when it's concentrated, most of the 40,000 tons you're talking about isn't concentrated -- it's fuel rod metal, etc. that's absorbed radiation from the nuclear fuel. Keep in mind that much of the uranium that's burned in reactors and becomes nuclear waste came from Utah in the first place, from the mines around Moab. So dilute the waste with an inert substance, stick it back in the ground, and it won't have much more effect on anyone than the original, natural uranium ore did.

Right now, high-level nuclear waste is stored in holding ponds at nuclear power plants. There's one at San Onofre about twenty miles south of where I'm sitting. I've gone surfing at Trestles, within sight of the reactor and the holding ponds. I haven't grown a second head.

If people don't pack their bags and move out of San Clemente because nuclear waste is stored at San O, you certainly don't have to worry about leaving Utah because the same kind of waste is going to be stored in an engineered repository a hundred miles from anywhere in the Utah west desert.

[Blessed]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 05:11 PM

The government isn't going to knowingly radiate the populace. Relax buddy.

Yeah, right. This is the same government that brought us DDT and said it was "perfectly" safe.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2005, 04:35 PM

I think it has more to do with the fact that Utah has a whole-lotta-nuthin', just like Nevada and eastern California.

I was joking about the Fundamentalist Christians by the way...

There is a lot of misinformation about nuclear waste. 

Thanks for the explanation...I hope it was accurate, because now it doesn't sound so bad.

You did mention something about burying the nuclear waste? From what I heard this waste was going to be stored on the surface over there in Skull Valley or whatever its called. Will that make a difference? I also seem to remember reading that it will be there for maybe 20 or more years...on the surface?

Do you know what would happen if a Terrorist bombed the storage site, or even if they just stole the containers and released the substance into the water supply of SLC? Would that be a bad thing (I honestly don't know what the effect would be)?

Is the amount of nuclear waste in your city anywhere near 40,000 tons? If not, would you be worried if it was?

And finally...if this stuff is so harmless, why have NONE of the newspaper articles I read put the public at ease by making such a statement?

All I hear is that Utah, in early April, is going to get in a legal battle to stop the storage of nuclear waste here.

If it is so harmless, why would they fight against it?

If it is so harmless, why don't they leave it where it is now?

I'm not doubting what you said, PD...but I think those are important questions.

[DisRuptive1]

It's probably insignifigant waste. Nuclear waste can be generally classified a either "low level" radioactive waste or "high level" radioactive waste. The level of radioactivity and the half life of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste is relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste to decay, at which point the waste can be disposed of as normal refuse. High level radioactive waste is generally material from the core of the nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years) creating long time periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity.

Short term storage will reduce the radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel significantly. A ten year storage can bring a 100 times decrease in radioactivity. Radioactive material decays in an exponential fashion, thus a reduction of radioactive emissions, similar to that of the first 10 years, would take another 100 years of storage. Storing the waste for at least 10-20 years is highly beneficial. The reduction in radioactivity makes handling and shipment of the waste possible.

Long term storage in a rock formation, on land, is the most likely solution for high level radioactive waste. The radioactive material would likely undergo vitrification and then be buried in caverns, created in a large rock formation. When use of the storage area is complete, it would be sealed again with stone. While still extremely expensive, and not considered as safe, in the end, as the some other methods of storage, it is the most viable storage option currently available.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 05:14 PM

It's probably insignifigant waste.  Nuclear waste can be generally classified a either "low level" radioactive waste or "high level" radioactive waste. 

I have been reading the papers, and have not found any information about what type of waste we are dealing with.

Has the media EVER released the details of what level of nuclear waste we are dealing with here?

High level or low level?

With 40,000 tons, that would be a detail I think the population would be interested in.

As for this above ground storage inside rock formations...that sounds like the Yucca Mountain plan, which is now possibly going to be cancelled, and possibly making Utah the permanent storage ground for the the waste. And from what I heard, the storage in Utah will not be inside rock formations. Is that any cause for concern?

[DisRuptive1]

Nah. You can still put it inside metal containers. As long as the radioactivity can't escape or anything. Rock formations are just one of the better ways to use space and it's mainly advisable for long term storage. Imagine how long dinosaur bones existed in the ground before we even discovered them. That would kind of be like the nuclear waste. If it's in the rocks then it won't bother anyone.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I would be much more comfortable if they put it in the rocks, rather than metal containers. Metal containers are visible to Terrorists. They can be stolen and dumped into the water supply. They might even be possible destroy with explosives.

Or am I wrong about that?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 05:14 PM

High level radioactive waste is generally material from the core of the nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years) creating long time periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity.

I just checked a recent newspaper article and found this statement:

Utah officials will get another chance April 6 to argue that the Private Fuel Storage high-level radioactive waste storage facility planned for Tooele County is too risky.

Looks like were dealing with the dangerous stuff here.

I don't like this...

[DisRuptive1]

According to how I understand the statement, the containers are made to hold high level radioactive waste. Just because waste is put in there doesn't mean it's high level. And even if it is, the storage facilities are designed to hold it so why worry? And why would terrorists want to bomb some storage tanks when they can blow up the capital?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 06:13 PM

According to how I understand the statement, the containers are made to hold high level radioactive waste.  Just because waste is put in there doesn't mean it's high level.  And even if it is, the storage facilities are designed to hold it so why worry?  And why would terrorists want to bomb some storage tanks when they can blow up the capital?

Ok, assuming that Terrorists will not do anything at this site, there are still things to worry about, according to this article below...

From The Lord's Newspaper:

(I have highlighted things to worry about in red):

"If it's safe to transport and it's safe to store above ground in Utah, it should be safe to store in the various locations across the country where it was generated."

"Almost sends me back to childhood," commented Jay Truman, founder and director of the advocacy group Downwinders. Living 100 miles downwind from the Nevada Test Site, he would hear pronouncements from the Atomic Energy Commission on the radio: "There is no danger, we repeat, there is no danger."

That happened, Truman said, "as that morning's fallout clouds blew by overhead."

[DisRuptive1]

If it is such a big deal to you, where do you think it should be placed? Do you believe that Utah was the first destination thought of just because "Mormons" lived there? Do you think no other factors made the site better than most sites for storage?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 25 2005, 09:54 AM

If it is such a big deal to you, where do you think it should be placed? Do you believe that Utah was the first destination thought of just because "Mormons" lived there? Do you think no other factors made the site better than most sites for storage?

Actually, I was joking about the Fundamentalist Christians pressuring the government into storing nuclear waste here because Mormons are acceptable losses. Just a joke (I hope).

No, I think they chose this place because it is not in the eastern part of the country.

As you explained to me, above ground storage in these containers is completely safe, correct?

I emphasized one line in the above article:

"If it's safe to transport and it's safe to store above ground in Utah, it should be safe to store in the various locations across the country where it was generated."

So if this waste was produced in Virginia (for example), it should stay above ground in these very safe containers in Virginia.

Or are they afraid to keep them in Virginia...and if so...why?

It leads one to think that these containers are not as safe as they want us to believe...

"Oh sure, it's perfectly safe...these containers are indestructable...you don't even have to store them inside a mountain. Just keep them 50 miles outside any populated area. Oh, and let's put them on the other side of the country too."

[Cal]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Mar 24 2005, 05:28 PM

I would be much more comfortable if they put it in the rocks, rather than metal containers.  Metal containers are visible to Terrorists.  They can be stolen and dumped into the water supply.  They might even be possible destroy with explosives.

Or am I wrong about that?

As far as Terrorists go, I doubt it would be on the top of their list of projects for a few of reasons: 1) unless the depot is near a populated area, which this doesn't sound like, the radiation is not likely to do much of the kind of damage that terrorists like to brag about. The inverse square law of radiant phenomenon tends to apply-meaning that assuming the radioactive substances spread out evening in all direction (which is not always assumed due to the wind factor), therefore, detonating an explosive devise in one of them may spread a little radioactive material around the immediate area, but would tend to reach a pretty low level by the time it reached much population.

2) There are a lot more dramatic ways to make their point.

3) Polluting the drinking water is a very ineffective way to do terrorism--mainly because pollutants tend to get dilluted to the point of harmlessness and second because they are so easily detected before the reach the population.

There are a lot better reasons to leave SLC, I'm sure---I just can't think of any right now

Also---actually, the chemical danger of plutonium is just as bad as its radioactive effect. As a chemical plutonium is one of the nastiest chemicals around--extremely carcinogenic and toxic. But as PD pointed out, the danger from these storage activities seems to be minimal--modern techiques seem to keep the material secure--no one, I can think of, has been harmed by any storage problems with nuclear waste. One of the safest ways the material is stored is in salt mine in the Gulf of Mexico region---old salt mines aren't absolutely "water proof"--but since they have been for 10's of thousands of years, they are a pretty good bet.

The best (barring the economics and techical problems) solution would be to shoot is all into the sun, but that is a lot harder than it sounds.

As to the politics of Utah---I doubt any state would lobby for the priviledge--tends to lower property values!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

So far everyone's explanations have made me feel better about this.

Thank you all for your advice.

The only question remaining for me is the one I quoted twice from Deseret News.

"If it's safe to transport and it's safe to store above ground in Utah, it should be safe to store in the various locations across the country where it was generated."

So why move it to Utah?

[DisRuptive1]

You don't want to store all your eggs in one basket. If terrorists want to radiate an area would it be better to have all the radiation in one place so one bomb can blast it to smithereens, or should we spread the waste out so it takes more bombs to destroy the same amount of nuclear waste?

It's probably due because of efficiency. It keeps terrorists from efficiently harming us. If we put all our nuclear waste in just one place, it wouldn't take much to blow the place to bits. But if each city has a little bit of nuclear waste then it's sort of pointless to blow one of them up.

Also, space is a good place for nuclear waste. But we got to think about what starts to happen when we take matter from the Earth and put it into space where we'll never see it again. At least it's possible in the future that we can learn how to alter atoms and turn this waste into something helpful. That is, we might learn how to recycle our nuclear waste. And if you've seen that Futerama episode, it might be a bad idea to put all our junk into space, because then it might all clot up together and come back to us and crash into the Earth and destroy all life as we know it.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 25 2005, 12:40 PM

You don't want to store all your eggs in one basket.

I agree...

But I think that what is happening is that they are taking nuclear waste from various places around the country and moving it all to Utah.

So instead of spreading it out, as you say, they are concentrating it all in Utah (and maybe later Nevada).

At least that is the impression I got...I have not heard of any other places where they are sending such large amounts of nuclear waste.

If there are other places that are recieving 40,000 tons of nuclear waste, and if they were leaving 40,000 tons behind in the various places where the stuff was produced, then I might believe they were spreading it out.

But as it looks now, it seems they are putting all their "eggs" in Utah.

Maybe I am wrong about that, but it is just my understanding of the newspaper articles I have been reading.

Does anyone know what percentage of the nations nuclear waste this 40,000 tons accounts for? That would help tell us if they are really spreading it out.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Tao,

The intermountain West makes better sense for nuclear waste storage because it's more sparsely populated and because it's drier, which cuts down on potential water-intrusion problems. (The Gulf-region salt mines look pretty good, too, as was pointed out). The only reason I'd be skeptical of storing the waste at the proposed Utah site is that it might take the pressure of the Yucca Mountain site, which has been studied and restuded and has had gazillions of dollars invested in it and has me convinced that it's as good a site as any.

The best (barring the economics and techical problems) solution would be to shoot is all into the sun, but that is a lot harder than it sounds.

I'll say. Rockets don't have perfect safety records. I'd much rather have waste stuck in the desert a hundred miles from nowhere than have it shooting over my head in a rocket that may not go where it's supposed to, or which may go boom at the worst possible time.

As to the politics of Utah---I doubt any state would lobby for the priviledge--tends to lower property values!

'Course, Dugway, Utah doesn't exactly top the list of real estate hot-spots. Could property values there possibly go any lower? B)