Amen to everything you've said below. Especially about the lower risk of nuclear power compared to every other kind of energy production, including solar cells (and probably wind power too, once they become more prevalent - I wonder how all those windmills affect the climate). I'm sorry I'm not in District 61.
Mark Anderson Bancroft ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:54 PM Subject: [Mpls] Re: Yucca Mtn. Consequences for Minneapolis > In a message dated Fri, 12 Jul 2002 4:02:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, Eric Oines writes: > > > The recent US Senate vote approving the Yucca Mtn. nuclear waste repository bodes > > ill for the residents of Minneapolis and the metro as a whole. > > > As opposed to the present policy of leaving the waste in place near the > Mississippi River, in one case cheek-by-jowl with the Prairie Island Ojibwe > community? Why, are they moving the site to the Metrodome? > > > Due to the proposed routes for either trucks or trains, all shipments originating > > from Minnesota nuclear plants (Prairie Island and Monticello) will be routed through > > the twin cities. If trucks are used for shipments, there will be 1,581 truckloads of > > high-level waste coming through the twin cities. If trains are used, 224 trainloads > > would come through. > > > I'd like to see some documentation on this. The rail network in Minnesota is hardly > so sparse that all trains must pass through Minneapolis, and to run truck convoys north > from Prairie Island to the metro area when Nevada is well south of here is counterintuitive. > Can we have a link? Preferably from the DoE? I'm a big fan of primary documents. > > > By contrast, Wisconsin, which has no plants, will have a total of 3 shipments. > > > No, but you don't have to have a nuclear generating plant to produce high-level > radwaste. Any hospital with a radiology department does that. Or should we close all > those down, too? > > > Estimates by the Environmental Working Group show that even the most minor accident > > involving a small release of radioactive gas (not a full breech, fire, or other "major" > > accident), could cost 700 people their lives within one year due to fatal cancers. > You forgot the part where we all grow an extra eye and become glowing mutants. > Environmental groups have a really crappy record on estimating these things, and I > find this estimate no more persuasive than the rest of the scaremongering they > indulge in on a regular basis...first the "global cooling" crisis, then the Club of > Rome's wildly inaccurate prognostications, then Paul Ehrlich's dud "Population Bomb"... > do I really need to go on? > > > DoE maps show that a significant portion of downtown, north Minneapolis and the lakes > > area is within 1 mile of the proposed train routes <snip> The proposed truck routes > > utilize I94, I35, I494 and route 62. Also within one mile of the Minnesota routes are > > 19 hospitals and 180 schools and a total population of 683,000 Minnesotans. > > > To say nothing of all those poor cuddly animals at the Minnesota Zoo. > Come on, Eric, we're talking about radioactive waste here, not nuclear weapons. > People manage to get along in those hospitals and schools and homes just fine > despite all the shipments of corrosive, acidic, explosive, and flammable substances > that move through the metro area on a daily basis, so what's the fuss over a bunch > of spent fuel rods wrapped in tons of steel and concrete? It's not like we're asking > people to take in the fuel rods and keep them in their living rooms, or even in their > garages. > > > The DoE acknowedges that these shipments represent a significant terrorist target. > > How easy would it be to derail a train or force a tracker-trailer off the road? > Not very. In spite of the fact that this stuff would be nearly useless for > making any kind of nuclear weapon, except a "dirty bomb" which would probably kill > more terrorists during its construction than Americans after its detonation, > shipments of high-level radwaste are routinely escorted by DoE security types who > will probably be given authority to shoot to kill. Besides, these casks are HEAVY. > No train carrying them is going to be moving very fast, and it's certain that DoE/ > Homeland Security is going to be checking the tracks very very carefully. "I pity > the fool that messes with a radwaste truck," as Mr. T might say. > > > Additionally, Yucca Mtn. will only be taking about half the waste currently stored > > in Minnesota, so this issue will NEVER go away as long as we continue to have active > > nuclear power plants in the state. > Again, I'd like to see documentation on this. All the literature I've seen says > that all the high-level waste (spent fuel rods, mainly) is going to Nevada. > > Nothing personal, Eric, but this whole post screams out why I could never > support the Green Party above the local level. Nuclear power is the safest and > cheapest power generation method available to us, from beginning (extracting the > fuel) to end (disposing of the waste) of the power generation cycle. It doesn't > put miners' lives at risk, it doesn't pollute rivers and other bodies of water, > and the current waste is the product of DECADES of plant operation. At that, those > rods could be recycled into new fuel, if we had ever built the breeder reactors > to do it - but thanks to the demagoguery of "ecology-minded" groups, those were > shelved here in the States. France, Germany and Japan don't seem to have problems > with theirs, oddly enough. Nuclear reactors don't release noxious gases into the > air, as do coal and oil. Nuclear reactors don't pollute the water table, as the > manufacture of solar cells does. Nuclear reactors operate 24x7, 365 days a year, > unlike wind farms and solar cells...neither of which could begin to replace the > megawattage generated at Monticello and Prairie Island. > It is the blind refusal of the Greens to see this, and their continued > scaremongering on the issue, that totally frustrates me. By all means, promote > energy conservation and alternative power sources (preferably ones that don't > need subsidies from the government to make them cost-effective) but spare us > the lectures on the horrors of nuclear power. There are far more health hazards > involved in NOT going nuclear. > > 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 _______________________________________ 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
