LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  September 2001

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE September 2001

Subject:

A final solution for low-level nuclear waste

From:

Ivan Handler <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:36:29 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

Sources:   Reuters <http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/sc/nm/?u%22>   |
 SPACE.com <http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/sc/space/?u%22>  |  AP
<http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/sc/ap/?u%22>

Monday September 3 6:38 PM ET


    Nuclear Waste Recyclers Target Consumer Products

By Allyce Bess

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Orthodontists could soon be giving their patients
more than they bargained for with their brand new braces: a mouthful of
radioactive waste.

Under a Department of Energy plan, braces aren't the only product which
could contain radioactive waste. Zippers, lawn chairs, hip replacements
and countless other consumer products could include trace amounts of
waste taken from nuclear reactors or weapons complexes and recycled into
scrap metal.

The Department of Energy (DOE) sees the recycling as a way to clean up
waste at decommissioned nuclear plants and weapons facilities, but
environmental groups call the idea ridiculous.

``It's hard to imagine a nuclear enterprise more tone deaf to public
concerns or a more cockamamie scheme than taking radioactive waste and
disposing of it in consumer products,'' said Dan Hirsch, president of
nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap.

The energy department will spend the next 12 months to 18 months
studying the environmental and health risks of the plan, having held 12
public hearings in six cities this summer, said DOE spokesman Joe Davis,

Critics say recycling radioactive waste, even at low levels, is
reckless. But energy officials say that the government needs to look at
all options for getting rid of the growing pile of hazardous wastes.
Proponents of the plan say that by spreading small, non-lethal amounts
into recycled scrap, the need for large waste dumps could be avoided.

CONCERN IS HEALTHY

A moratorium was placed on radioactive recycling last year by former
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson after environmental groups protested
the possible sale of 6,000 metric tons of contaminated nickel from the
energy department's Oakridge nuclear facility in Tennessee to scrap
metal dealers.

But under the Bush administration, the program is being revisited and
the energy department is considering lifting the moratorium. But before
that, it is required by law to conduct a thorough study on the safety
risks of recycling radioactive waste.

The proposal does not specify any uses for scrap metal containing the
radioactive waste, but metal industry executives say the material would
go into the supply of scrap metal and could be used to make anything.

Even the study has proven problematic. The DOE recently dropped Science
Applications International Corp. (SAIC) -- which it initially chose to
conduct the study and prepared a report -- because of its business
partnership with British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the company that last
year was going to contract with the government to help sell the waste
from the Oakridge facility.

Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap said it was an enormous
potential conflict of interest. SAIC's report ``is quite dangerous in
terms of arguing how much radioactivity would be acceptable for use in
consumer products.''

The energy department has not said who was hired to complete the study,
but some are arguing that the level of radiation in any recycled
materials would be too low to actually pose a health risk.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association representing some 260
companies in the nuclear power industry, has lobbied in favor of
radioactive recycling and says the public may be overly concerned.

``Concern is healthy,'' said Felix Killar, director of material licenses
for the institute. ``But people need to understand the facts. This isn't
truly radioactive waste. It's no more radioactive than any other
material recycled in to consumer products.''

Killar continues: ``There isn't a place on Earth that is totally free of
radioactivity.''

A LITTLE RADIATION IS OK

John Wittenborn, attorney for the Metal Industries Recycling Coalition
(MIRC), comprised of a variety of metal industry trade groups, says
their polls indicate the public doesn't buy the idea that nuclear waste
can be safely recycled into everyday products.

``We've spent a lot of time and effort to build the perception that
products made from recycled materials are safe and good and that
recycling itself is something that society should be in favor of,'' said
Wittenborn, whose group strongly opposes recycling of radioactive waste
into scrap metal.

Beyond the public image problem the industry would face in using the
recycled waste, companies are concerned about the potential
contamination of their mills and workers.

Wittenborn says it can cost from $5 million to $15 million to shut down,
inspect by hand and then clean a steel mill that has registered
radioactivity above a background level.

Recently, Wittenborn attended an energy department public hearing on the
issue in Crystal City, Virginia where he presented his polling data and
the metal industry's case.

In fact, those who have attended the hearings say most of the comments
have opposed lifting the moratorium on radioactive recycling.

``The observer might ask 'Why does the DOE continue to propose to do
this if no one is willing to come forward and testify on behalf of
it?''' said Dan Guttman, executive director of President Clinton's
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments,

``This is being cast as a question of convincing the hysterical public
that a little radiation is OK.''

--
Ivan Handler
Networking for Democracy
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager