First, an apology to the list. I was using AOL WebMail last night
to avoid flooding the list with all the HTML "noise" that accompanies
AOL mail, and apparently hit the "Send" button too many times.
In a message dated Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:14:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, Holle Brian
writes:
> A good public servant will not dismiss concerns about transporting high-level
> nuclear waste through the metro area as "scaremongering."
Legitimate concerns backed by good science, yes. Exaggerated concerns
blown out of all proportion, lacking any comparison to the risks taken
currently in transporting other hazardous cargos, no.
> Nuclear waste
> transport poses an unprecedented risk to the environment and human health.
> The short- and long-term affects of an accidental release are highly
> unpredictable. The scenarios laid out by the Environmental Working Group are
> based on a medium-risk factor - meaning an accident in the metro area could
> be less dangerous, or it could be more deadly, than their projections.
>
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. We know the nature of the substances being
transported. We know the type of container these substances are stored in, and
the likelihood of cask ruptures, and the possible results of leakage. We're
not talking about anthrax spores here, we're talking about radioactive waste
with well-defined characteristics that do not include rapid dissemination or
explosion.
> At a time when everybody is talking about increasing national security, it is
> unconscionable that any public official (or candidate) would accept the
> transport of deadly radioactive materials through a population center as
> safe, desirable or inevitable.
>
Oh, really? Should we also condemn the transport of natural gas, kerosene,
and other explosive flammables through our cities? How about chemicals such as
phosgene, chlorine, and ammonia? All of these move through the Minneapolis area
on a daily basis without so much as a whimper from the Greens. Also, how do we
know for sure that DoE in fact plans to move the radwaste through the city?
The news items I've read indicate that the routes will be kept secret to minimize
security problems.
> There are no good solutions to the problem of nuclear waste storage. There
> are some solutions that are less bad than others.
You may be surprised, but I agree with you on this. There are no good
solutions to the problems of waste storage, period.
> Minnesota needs to secure a
> local waste storage site, away from environmentally and socially sensitive
> areas (translation: NOT on the Mississippi River floodplain, and NOT on a
> reservation, as it is now), for above-ground dry casks that can be readily
> monitored, protected and maintained.
If one of the local bands of Native Americans wants to take stewardship
of the radwaste and be paid for it, that's their option. I do object to the
Prairie Island band being forced to live with this without being asked.
> And first and foremost, we need to stop
> generating this dangerous waste by shutting down Minnesota's reactors and
> reinvesting in diverse, locally-generated, sustainable
> energy systems.
None of which will begin to replace our two reactors either in safety
or lack of expense. A solution which doubles the cost of electricity is a
solution that comes at the expense of the poor and the middle class, and
is therefore no solution at all. Until the happy day when we can rely on
space-based solar power stations (I'm not holding my breath here) there
will be no safe, inexpensive solution to the power needs of Minneapolis
except the Monticello and Prairie Island plants.
Kevin Trainor
RPM Candidate HD 61A
East Phillips
www.taxpayersfortrainor.org
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
