LETTER FROM WASHINGTON:

Don’t declare Yucca Mountain dump plan dead yet, activist says

Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Washington — These days Nevada’s leaders routinely say Yucca Mountain is dead.

Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, says so. Republican Sen. John Ensign said as much last week. Others say that after the state’s long battle, the proposed nuclear waste dump is barely hanging on.

But longtime nuclear activist Daniel Hirsch, who was in town to testify for a Senate panel on nuclear cleanup issues, thinks otherwise.

Hirsch was just catching up on the news that Nevada’s longtime point-person in the fight against Yucca Mountain, Bob Loux, executive director of the state Nuclear Projects Agency, was fighting for his professional life after being involved in a pay-raise scandal.

Gov. Jim Gibbons and others have called for Loux to resign, and some see a chance to reopen the debate over whether hosting a nuclear waste dump might bring economic benefit to Nevada.

Even before the turn of events in Nevada, Hirsch was thinking Yucca was closer to surviving than ever. The closely contested presidential election offers two distinct futures: Republican candidate John McCain supports the dump; Democratic candidate Barack Obama promises to stop it.

Plus, the Yucca Mountain application is now pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — which has never in its 30-year history blocked a new nuclear power plant.

Hirsch sees a project very much alive.

He says what has been lost in the Yucca Mountain debate over the years, and especially now with renewed interest in nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source, is the risk we’re talking about with nuclear waste: cancer.

How many Nevadans should be at risk of dying of cancer from the radioactive waste being stored inside the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas before it makes the project untenable?

It’s a difficult conversation to have because it starts drifting to the never-never land of imagining what the mountain and Nevada will look like over the next 10,000 years.

But Hirsch, who teaches nuclear policies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, easily becomes the professor.

Under normal circumstances, the Environmental Protection Agency allows the risk of no more than 1 cancer fatality in every 10,000 people.

But for Yucca, the EPA allowed many more potential cancer deaths in the future — too many for the courts, which tossed out the cancer limits in 2005 after Loux and Nevada sued. The court ordered a rewrite.

Studies done by Arjun Makhijani at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a watchdog group, found that in the first 10,000 years, one in every 1,700 people would be at risk of dying from cancer as a result of Yucca Mountain. But the longer the highly radioactive waste is stored at Yucca Mountain, the greater the cancer risk. After 10,000 years, one in every 70 people would be at risk dying of cancer from Yucca Mountain, Makhijani reported. Among those most exposed to the toxins, either by breathing air or drinking contaminated ground water, one in every 13 would face a fatal cancer risk, he reported. He calls it a game of Russian roulette.

The EPA promised a rewrite of the cancer regulations by 2006, but the new numbers have been delayed. Even a fiery exchange between an EPA official and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during a Senate hearing late last year couldn’t get the agency to budge.

In the meantime, the Energy Department maintains there will be far fewer cancer deaths than the EPA was allowing.

It’s hard to say what will happen so far in the future. Maybe there will be a cure for cancer at some point.

But Hirsch thinks this generation has a responsibility not to gamble with the health of the next. He calls it “intergenerational ethics.”

“The debate is not over Harry Reid. It’s not over Bob Loux’s salary,” Hirsch said on a fall day last week in Washington.

“We want big-screen television sets and lights on all night” and leave the consequences to the generations that follow, he said. “The people who are going to get the cancers, they don’t have anyone who can fly to Washington and testify before a committee.”

Polls show most Nevadans oppose the waste dump. After watching the state hold it off for so long, it’s easy to see why they thought it was dead by now. They might need to reconsider.

Discussion: 11 comments so far…

By Future2012

9/21/08 at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lobbyist Daniel Hirsch must be running to replace crooked Lobbyist Bob Loux.

He will fit in since he has the same "cancer" fear-mongering approach to Yucca Mountain.

What Daniel Hirsch and Arjuin Makhijani do not present is location for the dose calculation criteria.

It is at the Yucca Mountain site boundary, within the NTS, where nobody lives.

So, if nobody live there, then apply a cancer rate of 1 in 1700 is meaningless.

To bring this up in a town that does not care about the potential Bhopal like deaths from a toxic laden tankers of 90,000 people.

Don't hire this guy. No crediblity
By nukeguy

9/21/08 at 1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Based on scientific studies over the last 25 years by the finest minds in our National Labs, it turns out the actual effect on someone living at the edge of the Nevada test from Yucca is essentially zero.
You would get a larger dose sitting in the Carson City capitol building (granite exudes radiation) for a single session. Maybe we should shut down the Capitol?
Yucca is not dead because this nation desperately needs it and the scientific truth about its safety will be demonstrated in the licensing proceedings about to commence.
Let the experts decide and keep the politicians out of this important decision.
By bag

9/21/08 at 8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Yucca Mountain project is now in the licensing phase. The NRC Commission is made up of both democrats and republicans including people selected by Senator Reid. The licensing process is one big scientific and safety review. DOE has put millions of documents on the internet (where do you think Nevada gets all the information they use to try and oppose the project) showing their hand for the whole world to see. So for those such as Sen. Obama who call for a scientific approach to dealing with spent fuel -- well we already have it. I just don't understand what more people expect and want. Also, everyone talks about how Nevadans are so opposed to Yucca -- based on all of the people I talk to I just don't see the opposition. Most people, including the people who respond to these Sun articles seem to take a responsible/reasonable approach or at the very least they are thoughful and not so negative. The media coverage just doesn't seem to jive with reality.
By boco

9/22/08 at 7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Whoa! Your reporter is mischaracterizing what the EPA has been doing on attempting to issue a radiation standard for the repository proposed for Yucca Mountain. You say the "EPA allowed more cancer deaths in the future" but the courts "tossed out the cancer limits in 2005."
First of all, the regulation set limits for radiation dose to be measured at a specific point in Amargosa Valley for a surrogate individual. The limit is so many (15) millirems per year.
The article must be referring to the remand by the federal court in 2004 to revise the regulation to be "based on and consistent with" the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences as regards to the PERIOD of regulatory requirements to the period of peak dose, which is hundreds of thousands of years-- well beyond the 10,000 years EPA had proposed. The court ruling says NOTHING about "cancer limits." Indeed, you will find quite a bit of disagreement among health physicists about the relationship between latent cancer fatalities and low doses (as expected at Yucca.)
The article is lazily written or edited to refer to EPA promising a rewrite of "cancer regulations" by 2006.
By WaterSource

9/23/08 at 4:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sure, Yucca is a gamble...

Science, timing, economics and politics can often produce unexpected results.

An equitable settlement is tough for both sides, but one side always loses if compromise does not prevail.

A struggle on one issue can sometimes solve a huge need in an unexpected arena...

Above all else, Nevada needs water...right ?

Nevada should consider an equitable settlement on Yucca ( assuming the science is confirmed ), in TRADE for DOE's development of a new Source of fresh water that would DOUBLE Nevada's water supply ! "Good Trade" !

How many jobs and much revenue is a million acre feet of fresh water each year worth to Nevada? ( That's 325,900,000,000 gallons.)

What is it worth to Nevada to keep Lake Mead full and producing 2000 megawatts of renewable energy every year ? It can be done.

What would it be worth to Las Vegas, the SNWA and the desert environment to have a more than ample fresh water ?

Odds are, Yucca will eventually prevail. The point is will Nevada get anything in return ... ?

Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com
By Sunlizard

9/23/08 at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

According to science, the trucks that will transport the waste (the train cost keeps going up and up) will throw out gamma radiation 800 yards on either side which is enough to cause cancer to those living in the towns it is transported through. One of those towns will be Las Vegas. I guess that all of these dimwits who support it sit in casinos and smoke all day anyway. Those idiots will be on oxygen tanks pretty soon...
By Ardent

9/23/08 at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wow. I'm deeply disappointed, once again, by Lisa Mascaro's clearly biased reporting and her complicity with the anti-nuke propaganda machine.

If she were reporting responsibly on this issue, she would at least give opposing views. As "boco" and others have pointed out, the EPA standard applies to dose; it is a two-tiered approach that stipulates a maximum of 15 mrem annually for the first 10,000 years, and a peak dose of 350 mrem thereafter for up to a million years. This is the result of the ruling made by the courts (the EPA had proposed a standard only for 10,000 years, and the court asked EPA to propose a standard for a longer period, in keeping with recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences).

What Hirsh the anti-nuke lobbyist is clearly doing is taking those projected doses and combining them with the allegations of anti-nuke health physicists who represent a vanishingly small minority of the scientific community.

In short, it's the difference between a handful of health physicists who claim a certain dose (say, 15 mrem) will cause 1 cancer in 1,700 exposures, and the vast majority of scientists who set the number much, much lower.

Moreover, Hirsh uses the common strategy of using projected effects from nuclear medicine, where the radiation is inches away (e.g., an x-ray machine) or actually ingested. By contrast, the repository is 100 miles away. Even at the edge of the repository the distance from the source of potential radiation nullifies any appreciable effect. (You'd be getting far more radiation from the sun.)

In short, such claims as those offered by Hirsh are intellectually bankrupt and little more than a cheap manipulation of already questionable data relating to an entirely different subject.

By Hirsh's logic, we would ban flames from fireplaces because those same flames would burn us if they contacted our skin.
By Ardent

9/23/08 at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

And here's another thing reporters such as Mascaro should consider before presenting such one-sided versions of the issue.

Arjun Makhijani is not the head of a "watchdog group" but rather the head of a self-created "institute" devoted to carbon-free and nuclear-free energy. He is an avowed opponent of nuclear energy as it currently exists. Together with the two other PhDs who comprise his "institute," Makhijani grinds out tracts that are one part science, one part political activism.

I won't presume to question Dr. Makhijani's credentials or the quality of his science; I'm in no position to do so. However, I do know that his views are profoundly out of step with the larger community of his scientific peers.

He represents, in short, a minority view that in other circumstances would be characterized as "radical," with all the connotations that word implies nowadays.

So, to summarize: When one scientist out of thousands comes up with an opinion that supports our own, we call him a "watchdog," a term that implies intellectual malfeasance or corruption on the part of those who advocate for the opposing view. But I would bet that same scientist would be run out of town and branded a "crackpot" if the situation were reversed -- that is, if he were a lone voice of dissent on a project given the thumbs-up by the Sun, Lisa Mascaro, Brother Hirsch, and the larger scientific community.
By letsciencedecide

9/23/08 at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sunlizard, you have been out in the sun too long. First, how many times do you need to be told that DOE will use mostly trains? Sure there will be some trucks, but any dose off those trucks 800 meters away will be undetectable. Now, how about the cancer risk from being a sun lizard? Much higher. Let's talk about risks, how many people die in swimming pools each year? Obviousely we need to outlaw swimming pools. Nuclear waste is a fact that has some risks but it will not go away. We can solve the problem now, or pass the problem to our children or grandchildren to solve. This generation didn't create the problem, but we can solve it.

Quit being a mindless mouth, try a little studing of facts and make some responsible decisions.
By Ardent

9/23/08 at 1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sunlizard:

You appear to be in need of actual facts rather than propaganda, so I will supply you a few. These come from the National Research Council, which one of the authors cited in the article (Arjun Makhijani) cites as a source of reliable statistics on the health effects of radiation dose. What the author doesn't dwell on, for obvious reasons, are the following statistics:

(1) Medical X-rays and nuclear medicine account for about 79% of the man-made radiation exposure in the United States.

(2) Elements in consumer products, such as tobacco, the domestic water supply, building materials, and to a lesser extent, smoke detectors, televisions, and computer screens, account for another 16%.

(3) Occupational exposures, fallout, and the nuclear fuel cycle comprise less than 5% of the man-made component

If you break down item (3) further, you find that 1% comes from nuclear power and waste disposal.

It is also worth mentioning that the highest and most dangerous doses of radiation come from radon gas, which is naturally occurring in the soil and seeps into people's homes. Radon, moreover, produces higher-energy ("high-LET") radiation doses because it is primarily inhaled, which translates into more destruction of tissue and cells (i.e., higher cancer risk).

Radon is responsible for 52% of the total radiation exposure worldwide, and it involves a very dangerous pathway (inhalation, which is on par with ingestion).

And yet, Sunlizard, I wonder if you are out raising a ruckus about this sinister danger, or whether you are among the millions of Americans (about 88%) who have ignored this potential threat in your own home and haven't bothered to spend $20 to get a home radon test.

But feel free to spout off about the grave danger posed by the 1% contribution to global radiation dose made by nuclear power and waste disposal.
By Ardent

9/23/08 at 3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Here is some more perspective -- again, as provided by the National Research Council's 2007 assessment of radiological risk, which one of the anti-nuke authorities in Mascaro's article uses to formulate his own conclusions.

Here's what the assessment says about a hypothetical population of 100 individuals who receive a specified dose above the normal dose we all receive due to background radiation:

(1) Out of 100 people, 42 can expect to receive a diagnosis of cancer in their lifetime.

(2) Only one of those cases will be a result of exposure to the added radiation.

So, we're at about 1 in 100 people contracting cancer as a result of exposure beyond the dose we receive from natural background sources.

However, now we have to assess the "added dose." The added dose used in the National Research Council report is approximately 100 mSv (0.1 Sv). To put it in context, natural background radiation is about 3.0 mSv anually.

So, in order to run a 1 in 100 risk due to added radiation exposure, you need to be exposed to approximately 33 times the amount of natural background radiation every individual is exposed to over the course of a year.

If we switch units to millirems (mrem), we find the breakdown is approximately as follows: 1.0 mSv = 100 mrem, so 3.0 mSv in background radiation = 300 mrem.

Now, the EPA standard for the repository calls for exposures to the public of no more than 15 mrem annually for 10,000 years, with a peak maximum exposure of 350 mrem annually thereafter up to a million years.

That means, in order for the 1 in 100 scenario to apply, the repository would have to expose 100 people to 10,000 mrem of radiation to cause a single occurrence of cancer due to radiation.

That's about 28.5 times the EPA dose standard after 10,000 years, and about 667 times the EPA dose standard for the first 10,000 years. (And by the way, the repository is designed to be well under the EPA limits.)

Take my word for it: You should spend more time and mental anguish worrying about things like the radon seeping up through your foundation....

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question