Letter: Nuke transport is terror threat

Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2001 | 8:42 a.m.

The Department of Energy has asked a National Academy of Sciences panel to investigate building a nuclear waste repository in stages while not broadening its investigation to consider alternative solutions.

The DOE has failed, after a 14-year study and spending $8 billion to prove, scientifically, that Yucca Mountain is suitable or that its geology will protect the environment. What is the answer to 289 deficiencies in the DOE scientific data and the General Accounting Office, ACNW-NRC-8-13-2001 report and the finding of deficiencies in peer review studies? Read paragraph one and change the rules!

Where is the realization in the name of anti-terrorism and homeland security after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001?

Instead we have the twisted logic and cynical and hypocritical statements by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nuclear power producers, their institute and lobby and ex-politicians that it is necessary to transport nuclear waste through 43 states over three decades.

This is an anti-terrorist strategy? This will protect us and future generations? You can never close the dry cask storage or cooling pools at the 103 operating nuclear reactors because they are needed for future waste storage.

If the nuclear waste is left where it is or moved there will still be 103 targets, the plants themselves. Transporting the waste creates over 1,000 attractive terrorist targets for three decades.

I forgot to mention that some of our politicians, in Congress and the Bush administration, are allowing this charade to continue.

Anti-terrorism and homeland security demand an end to this charade.

FRANK PERNA

archive