Home.Biography.Links.Contact.Articles.

Spring-Summer 2010

A free web site dedicated to the well being of future generations

Volume One -

1980-1984-

 

Originally published in paperback as "Getting

The Shaft, The Radioactive Waste Controversy in Manitoba."

Volume Two -

update: 1984-1988-

 

The growing prospect of nuclear waste dumps on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border intensifies the controversy

Volume Three -

update:1988-1998

 

Federal Environmental Panel concludes that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s permanent underground nuclear waste burial concept lacks public acceptability.

Volume Four -

update:1998-2008

 

Mixed Oxide plutonium transport and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and

nuclear waste issue grinds on

Nuclear Waste Saga

Home of the Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga: A personal account from 1980 to 2010 in four volumes and selected articles

Selected articles by Walt Robbins about the dangers and risks of nuclear waste and nuclear energy

Nuclear Waste Management Organization:

"Back to the Future"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

Accelerator Transmutation of Nuclear Waste (ATW)

“Modern Day Alchemy”

 

European prototype

 

Read More

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

Downsides of Nuclear Power

Sketch of Underground Laboratory

 

Read More

 

 

Nuclear Waste and Terrorism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

 

The Unholy Connection

Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Nuclear Weapons

 

U.S. President Barack Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons free world is indeed laudable as is his treaty with Russia on weapons stockpile reduction and the communiqué issued at his April, 2010, 47-nation summit promising greater efforts to block "non-state actors" from obtaining nuclear materials for "malicious purposes."  

 

However, someone should tell him about the elephant in the room; that his encouragement and financial assistance for the development of more nuclear energy in his own country runs directly counter to his weapons-free world vision. (Some of the many negative aspects of nuclear energy have been outlined in my “downsides” article).

   

You cannot build nuclear weapons without first having  nuclear energy, which produces the needed ingredients for atomic bombs. The world is already witnessing the frightening  linkage between nuclear energy and nuclear armaments in North Korea and Iran. The linkage is clear as is the desire of additional countries to pursue nuclear energy development.  

 

Referring to North Korea and Iran, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that "Both are countries whose actions contravene their international obligations. Both use violence and intimidation to deprive their own citizens of fundamental rights. Both are serious threats to global security. There is much at stake. If nuclear proliferation leads to the use of nuclear weapons, whether by states or non-state actors, then no matter where the bombs are set off, the catastrophe will be felt around the world."  Absolutely!  But, Mr. Harper should also be advocating the phase out of nuclear energy, without which nuclear weapons development would not be possible.

 

Further proliferation of nuclear energy can bring the world even closer to the risk of nuclear bomb making materials falling into the wrong hands.  Nuclear energy expansion is likely to increase the already dangerous potential for diversion of nuclear materials to unsavory terrorist groups around the world. The more nuclear facilities–the more opportunities for nuclear terrorism.

 

And then, there is the unsolved problem of the irradiated fuel waste, which can be diverted to nuclear weapons development. Producing more nuclear fuel waste without a truly acceptable solution for its disposition is really quite unconscionable.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

President  Obama’s new  “Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.” is now in the process of determining what to do about irradiated nuclear fuel wastes, now that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has essentially been eliminated as a potential underground repository site.

 

One option, the reprocessing of nuclear waste, will quite likely be a topic for discussion by the Blue Ribbon Commission.  

 

It is truly amazing how many nuclear energy advocates naively believe that all you need do with nuclear waste is “recycle it.” to pave the way for a nuclear power “renaissance.” This simplistic notion completely overlooks the harsh realities surrounding nuclear waste reprocessing.

 

Nuclear waste is anything but a nice, clean, green substance that can be recycled like yesterday morning’s newspaper. Lethality and toxicity of this waste as well as its mind-boggling  longevity is well known. You cannot simply take the waste and easily convert it into fresh reactor fuel. You cannot cool it off and stick it back into the reactor.

 

Reprocessing requires that you break up the deadly radioactive waste and extract the elements you need, putting them through an unbelievably toxic “un-green” process to produce some useable fuel for the reactor.  

 

The process is well described by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, CCNR.  On his web site he says that “...separating plutonium from spent fuel is a dangerous and a dirty business. First the fuel is chopped up, by remote control, behind heavy lead shielding. These chopped-up pieces are then dissolved in boiling nitric acid, releasing radioactive gases in the process. The plutonium is separated from the acid solution by chemical means, leaving large quantities of high-level radioactive liquid waste and sludge behind. After it has cooled down for several years, this liquid waste will have to be solidified for ultimate disposal, while the separated plutonium is fabricated into nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons.”  

 

As noted by Wikipedia, “reprocessing of civilian fuel has long been employed in Europe, at the COGEMA La Hague site in France, the Sellafield site in the United Kingdom, the Mayak Chemical Combine in Russia, and at sites such as the Tokai plant in Japan, the Tarapur plant in India, and briefly at the West Valley Reprocessing Plant in the United States.”

 

Yes, some of those countries currently reprocess irradiated nuclear fuel rods.  But it is becoming increasingly apparent that the down sides of reprocessing far outweigh any of its perceived advantages.

 

As  Max S. Power (an analyst who worked on nuclear cleanup issues for two decades ), points out, “...in the 1980s, (U.S.) Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment concluded ‘reprocessing’ which generates additional radioactive waste streams and involves operational risks of its own, does not offer advantages that are sufficient to justify its use for waste management reasons alone.’”

 

According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, “Reprocessing is the fundamental link between a nuclear reactor and a plutonium bomb.”  The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted that “reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation.”

 

Reprocessing is also responsible for considerable radioactive land and water pollution; for example from the British and French reprocessing operations at Sellafield and La Hague respectively. Originating from Sellafield sources, the Irish sea merits the dubious distinction of being called the most radioactive body of water in the world. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability says that “France's reprocessing plant at La Hague routinely discharges into the English Channel so-called low-level liquid radioactive waste which has contaminated seas as far away as the Arctic Circle.”

 

Given these proliferation and environmental concerns, I hope that the Presidents’s Blue Ribbon Commission eliminates nuclear waste reprocessing from any serious consideration.  

 

Most importantly, the Commission should recommend that further production of nuclear waste itself be curtailed by the phase-out of nuclear energy, in favour of the many available truly innovative renewable green energy and conservation measures.

 

Walt Robbins

April, 2010