A deadly proposition

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

1. By Future2012

   10/6/08 at 7:32 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   The LV Sun is fear-mongering and has lied by omission. The intent of the article is to have residents of the Las Vegas valley believe that 1 out 125 of our 1.8 million residents will get cancer. Wrong.

   Unsaid is the strong generational health benefit of nuclear power in reducing globe warming. Millions of people stand to live, and live a better life, if greenhouse gases are eliminated.

   The LV sun gets one of their staff writers, in this case Lisa Mascaro, to write stuff up about the Yucca project, then the editors cherry pick the article to present "pseudo facts"

   In her article, Lisa Mascaro (in the absence of Crooked lobbyist Bob Loux) got her fact from interpretations by fear-mongering watchdog groups (Nuclear watchdog groups like the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research).

   The standard itself is normal, reasonable and well below comparable requirements across the U.S., and is at the site boundary not in the Las Vegas valley.

   Setting the radiation level at 15 millirems -- about equivalent to an X-ray -- a year for the first 10,000 years of the project, is consistent with long standing public policy.

   The fact is that there are no theoretical farmers living 24/7 on the remote site boundary fencepost 11 miles south of the Yucca site at Amargosa Valley that actual could uptake the dose.

   Barbara Greenspun, Brian Greenspun, Lisa Mascaro, Micheal Kelly, Micheal Campell and fear-mongering watchdog groups, would have you believe that 125 people are sitting around 24/7 on the fence post at this remote high desert location, living off of Yucca plant roots, and that that one of them will die 5000 years from now.

   Lisa brought up Daniel Hirsch who is a believer in the concept of generational ethics -- that this generation has a responsibility not to saddle the next generation. This is exactly why we need to remove the naval waste, Defense Waste and Commercial spent fuel from 100's of location to one secure location, and promote greenhouse gas elimination.

   The fear-mongering LV Sun cannot understand that the acceptance criteria is less than a plane ride. Have Barbara Greenspun, or Brian Greenspun, Lisa Mascaro, Micheal Kelly, or Micheal Campell gotten an x-ray or taken a plane ride this year.

   With this kind of lies and garbage reporting it is no wonder that the Sun organization is laying off staff and going broke.

2. By Ardent

   10/6/08 at 8:53 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   More lies and mischaracterizations from the Sun editors, who rather than consulting independent scientific oversight bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) prefer consulting those "fringe" elements that accord with their prejudice. So, I will once again post results from the NAS in response to the Sun's chronic propaganda campaign.

   The NAS establishes a basic dose/cancer relationship as follows: At exposure levels of 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) above the dose we get from background radiation annually (360 mrem), the risk of cancer is 1 in 100. In other words, for every 100 people exposed to that 10,000-mrem dose, one person will develop cancer as a result of it. (41 others in that group of 100, by the way, will develop cancer from causes unrelated to the added radiation exposure.)

   So, let's assume a proportional risk relationship and look at the dose levels proposed in the EPA standard. If, at exposure levels of 10,000 mrem, the cancer risk is 1%, then the risk at exposure levels of 15 mrem is 0.0015%. That means that for every 200,000 people exposed, three people would develop cancer as a result of the added exposure. (And again, out of that 200,000 people, 82,000 people would develop cancer from causes unrelated to the added exposure.)

   At the 100-mrem EPA dose standard (after 10,000 years up to a million years), the percentage of risk is 0.01%, which means that for every 10,000 people exposed, one person will develop cancer as a result of the added exposure. (And once again, out of that 10,000 people, 4,100 people would develop cancer from causes unrelated to the added exposure.)

   Remember, too, that I've simplified and used a proportional relationship that doesn't exactly mesh with "real-life" epidemiology statistics or the full NAS methodology. For example, in Denver the annual radiation dose from background sources is around 700 mrem (nearly twice the average), and yet there is apparently no higher incidence of cancer among the population.

3. By Ardent

   10/6/08 at 9:12 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Here's a bit of news reported on by closet repository supporter Chuck Muth.

   Bob Loux and his deputy Joe Strolin (along with Nevada's political institutions in toto) have always claimed that Nevada does not stand to benefit financially from hosting the repository. Some have taken a "principled" stand against accepting any "nuclear blackmail," whether any federal compensation was offered or not. Others have maintained that the federal government has never and would never offer such compensation even if we wanted it.

   So, as Muth reports, and as I have confirmed independently, Sen. Inhofe and others have proposed an amendment to the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill that would provide substantial compensation to the State for hosting the repository.

   SA 4931, Inhofe's amemdment as entered in the Congressional Record for June 5, 2008, would grant Nevada the following benefits should the amendment be adopted and the legislation passed:

   $100 million annually for every year the Yucca Mountain license application is under review (three to four years = $300 to $400 million).

   $250 million annually during the construction phase if the repository is granted a construction authorization by the NRC (upwards of $2 billion if the repository takes eight or nine years to build).

   $500 million thereafter for each year that waste is stored in the repository. The amendment doesn't specify if this period only covers the operational phase (75 to 100 years) or includes the period after repository closure (millennia).

   The only stipulation would be that the State could not use that money to oppose or stall the repository in any way during the licensing and construction phase. (The State would be free to use its own money to oppose or stall the repository).

   What is our State's budget shortfall again? About $1 billion? What could the State get from the government for hosting the repository? About 2.5 billion by 2020?

   And what is the likely fate of SA 4931?

   You can bet your life that Senators Reid and Ensign will ensure that SA 4931 never makes it into the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, and Nevada won't see dime one of the proposed benefits.

4. By theroyprocess

   10/7/08 at 9:56 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump
   fulfills many agendas! It is a Congressional
   money pit and a way to grab trillions of the
   publics taxes. It creates political power through
   the weapons threat. It will not work and leak out
   like it already did at Hanford, Washington. It
   will vent radioactive gas to go world wide and
   depopulate the planet! No one is immune! You
   can't fool Mother Nature forever!

5. By limestone

   10/8/08 at 2:19 p.m.

   Comment removed by staff.

« Previous TenNext Ten »