dinnertime musings
Aug. 20th, 2002 08:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lorimtSo, for the past year or so I've kind of assumed that at some point in my life, I'd get cancer, have treatment and end up perfectly fine. My mother and grandmother both did, and given how much earlier my mother did, I figured I'd likely get something before age 30. I wasn't very fatalistic about it, neither of them were "sick" for over a month. The only real difference I noticed in my grandmother was that she stopped dying her hair when it came back in partly black. My mom's only real concession was working a slightly shorter shift at my school's grad party.
The reason I mention this now is that my grandmother was talking to some researchers from where my mother grew up, several states away from where we now live. They say that it is possible that their cancers were caused by emissions from a nuclear research center a few hundred miles southwest of where they lived. Supposedly, the research center had several of these emissions before they really figured out what was going on. The radiation got into water, potatoes and milk, all of which they both consumed regularly. In other words, pending the results of a genetic test, its unlikely I'll get cancer, at least from the same cause.
The real reason for this post is not to celebrate this discovery. Its because it made me think a bit about nuclear power. I've always been a fan of the idea. Power plants are run very carefully, and even the tiniest changes in radiation levels nearby are monitored. Not only that, but the power is immense, the resource much more renewable, and the other potentials for radiation are so large. I know that the waste is dangerous, but it is contained, kept track of, and otherwise monitored for safety much better than other pollutants.
I still feel more or less the same about nuclear power in general. On the other hand, the types of emissions and risks at this research center shocked me. Yes, much of this happened years ago, before anyone knew what they were doing. In fact, much of the very first research was done at this plant. Overall, the results have been fantastic. I'm glad that they did this work, but it worries me that they weren't more careful. I don't think this knowledge has changed my views much, but now I know some of the downsides a little better. As much as I am pro nuclear power and research, I am also very much in favor of safety precautions and restraint.
Another thing that all of this reminds me of is Yucca mountain and all of the arguments about it. I am not an expert, so my opinion is open to change in light of new information, but I've read and heard at least a few opinions from those who have studied it, so neither am I entirely in the dark. I think Yucca Mountain or a containment facility like it is much needed. Little pockets of spent waste, some of which are known to be leaky already, should be condensed to one remote, fairly safe location. More importantly, the government has been promising such a location for the past ten years. Many nuclear facilities are now forced to build temporary containment devices to hold waste that they expected the government to pick up years ago. Detractors to plans for Yucca Mountain have two major objections. One is the transport along the way; the other is site safety. Transportation along the way is mostly a case of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. People whom otherwise like the idea don't want trains of nuclear waste going through their metaphoric back yard. It seems people who already have waste in their town are somewhat accustomed to it, and therefore complain more quietly. On the other hand, as small as the odds of a train wreck or attack on a waste train are, the risk if it does happen is seen to be huge, never mind governmental reassurances. I happen to be pretty confident in this aspect of the plan, but these fears are natural, given the track record the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has had in the past. As for the safety of Yucca Mountain, I don't believe the government or anyone else who claims something will be safe for 10,000 years. It’s simply not practical. Moreover, it hurts their cause, as few are likely to believe them. To my mind, Yucca Mountain minimizes the risk, particularly in comparison to current storage methods. Also, the site is under observation, so dangers should be more quickly noticed. Beyond that, the population surrounding the area is tiny, and is, or should be, aware of the risks. The reports I've heard claim that water in the area both won't reach the site (who knows if it actually can) and drain into an area not used by people (I would hope so). If these things are all true, it seems quite safe and reasonable to use. The current system is clearly not as safe or as well planned.
I realize this post is quite long. I would attempt to find the lj-cut directions, but given how rarely I post, I will guess most people can deal with the length.
The reason I mention this now is that my grandmother was talking to some researchers from where my mother grew up, several states away from where we now live. They say that it is possible that their cancers were caused by emissions from a nuclear research center a few hundred miles southwest of where they lived. Supposedly, the research center had several of these emissions before they really figured out what was going on. The radiation got into water, potatoes and milk, all of which they both consumed regularly. In other words, pending the results of a genetic test, its unlikely I'll get cancer, at least from the same cause.
The real reason for this post is not to celebrate this discovery. Its because it made me think a bit about nuclear power. I've always been a fan of the idea. Power plants are run very carefully, and even the tiniest changes in radiation levels nearby are monitored. Not only that, but the power is immense, the resource much more renewable, and the other potentials for radiation are so large. I know that the waste is dangerous, but it is contained, kept track of, and otherwise monitored for safety much better than other pollutants.
I still feel more or less the same about nuclear power in general. On the other hand, the types of emissions and risks at this research center shocked me. Yes, much of this happened years ago, before anyone knew what they were doing. In fact, much of the very first research was done at this plant. Overall, the results have been fantastic. I'm glad that they did this work, but it worries me that they weren't more careful. I don't think this knowledge has changed my views much, but now I know some of the downsides a little better. As much as I am pro nuclear power and research, I am also very much in favor of safety precautions and restraint.
Another thing that all of this reminds me of is Yucca mountain and all of the arguments about it. I am not an expert, so my opinion is open to change in light of new information, but I've read and heard at least a few opinions from those who have studied it, so neither am I entirely in the dark. I think Yucca Mountain or a containment facility like it is much needed. Little pockets of spent waste, some of which are known to be leaky already, should be condensed to one remote, fairly safe location. More importantly, the government has been promising such a location for the past ten years. Many nuclear facilities are now forced to build temporary containment devices to hold waste that they expected the government to pick up years ago. Detractors to plans for Yucca Mountain have two major objections. One is the transport along the way; the other is site safety. Transportation along the way is mostly a case of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. People whom otherwise like the idea don't want trains of nuclear waste going through their metaphoric back yard. It seems people who already have waste in their town are somewhat accustomed to it, and therefore complain more quietly. On the other hand, as small as the odds of a train wreck or attack on a waste train are, the risk if it does happen is seen to be huge, never mind governmental reassurances. I happen to be pretty confident in this aspect of the plan, but these fears are natural, given the track record the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has had in the past. As for the safety of Yucca Mountain, I don't believe the government or anyone else who claims something will be safe for 10,000 years. It’s simply not practical. Moreover, it hurts their cause, as few are likely to believe them. To my mind, Yucca Mountain minimizes the risk, particularly in comparison to current storage methods. Also, the site is under observation, so dangers should be more quickly noticed. Beyond that, the population surrounding the area is tiny, and is, or should be, aware of the risks. The reports I've heard claim that water in the area both won't reach the site (who knows if it actually can) and drain into an area not used by people (I would hope so). If these things are all true, it seems quite safe and reasonable to use. The current system is clearly not as safe or as well planned.
I realize this post is quite long. I would attempt to find the lj-cut directions, but given how rarely I post, I will guess most people can deal with the length.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-21 02:37 pm (UTC)