Planned nuclear waste facility raises fears for Great Lakes

[bananas]

Source: Detroit Free Press

Some materials that would be stored in a proposed underground nuclear waste facility less than a mile from Lake Huron are hundreds of times more radioactive than was told to Canadian government officials considering the site.

That revelation was brought to light by Frank Greening, a nuclear scientist who once worked for Ontario Power Generation, the utility seeking the deep geologic repository to store low- to intermediate-radioactive waste in Kincardine, Ontario, about 111 miles northeast of Port Huron on the Canadian side of Lake Huron.

Greening’s finding, along with a February accident at a similar underground nuclear waste storage facility in New Mexico that left workers on the surface exposed to radiation, has left Canada’s joint review panel asking new questions about the viability of the Kincardine project, and residents up in arms.

The new findings heighten the concerns many have over the nuclear waste facility’s proximity to the Great Lakes, from which 24 million U.S. residents get drinking water and that makes possible Michigan’s $2-billion fishing, $4-billion boating and $18-billion tourism industries.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20140413/NEWS06/304130074/Planned-nuclear-waste-facility-raises-fears-Great-Lakes

[darkangel218]

1. There is no safe place on Earth for nuclear waste storage.

No matter where you put it, it will affect us immensely.

[elleng]

6. YES, angel,

was just going to say the SAME thing!

[jwirr]

2. IMO if we allow one Great Lake to be endangered we will also lose the others. We have a good

organization that fights these kinds of issues on all the lakes and it includes Canada. We need to back that group in this fight and tell Canada that we are expecting them to live up to their agreement with us.

[longship]

3. I recommend that they put it in the salt mines under Kansas.

It is the perfect place. Geologically stable. Dry. No water sources or aquifers to be affected, given the geology in the region.

We need to end nuke power, the sooner, the better. In the meantime we have to rid ourselves of the waste. Unfortunately, this is one of the most difficult tasks, which is precisely why it has to end. If nobody wants the waste then how can people defend it?

But we need a safe place to store the wastes which we already have generated. Certainly it should not be in a geologically active region, or one which has access to an aquifer.

A salt mine is about the best one can do.

[RobertEarl]

7. Good thinking: Stop making any more waste!

Did you hear some people think dumping it in the pacific is cool?

Yep, they think the pacific ocean is so big that dumping waste in to that ocean will not cause any problems. Hard to f'n believe, isn't it? But it's true!! Some people.....

[longship]

8. Well, that would be better than blasting it into the sun.

Which is another lame idea. It would work except for the technical difficulties, and then there's the cost.

The problem is, not even anti-science Kansas wants to be the host. But for the betterment of humankind, it may very well be one of the best.

Not so sure about the Pacific, one way or another. Have not worked that one out. I would expect that the salt mine solution would be better. It has all the advantages, and there are few native life forms.

After all, we would not want this in our future:

[RobertEarl]

9. There is nuke waste in a salt mine in NM

It is named WIPP: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The DoE has put billion$ down in that hole.

It was said to be a place that would keep us safe from the waste for a thousand years.

It is now non-operational.

It is non-operational because it caught on fire and several employees got irradiated from the waste it was supposed to keep safe for a thousand years.

Back to the drawing board, eh?

[longship]

10. Well, that is ALWAYS the problem.

The science is ahead of the technology to keep it safe.

The best idea is to get it the fuck off the planet. But that will never work. So one has to find a way to put it away where it will not have an effect.

But where? Nobody wants it. One interesting idea (not practical) is to put it in a subduction zone where it will be taken into the crust. Really difficult with today's tech.

Myself, I like the cynical idea of putting it into McDonald's hamburgers. It would be all gone in no time. How many billion served?


Regards.

[csziggy]

11. Why not send it to the moon?

[longship]

12. The moon? One never knows what would happen.

Maybe we'll have a base there.


Maybe they'll name it Moon Base Alpha.


But beware of September 13th:


We can even tell our children about it with comic book renditions of the history.

[ancianita]

4. Wonder what the lawyers on behalf of residents plan to do. Ontario Power's got a dumping problem.

There exists a Great Lakes Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact) that might not have standing but whose representatives could effect some new change in Ontario Power's waste management.

[grilled onions]

5. What Can Possibly Go Wrong?

Tourism...fishing,water sports Commercial fishing...placing doubts on eating anything coming from the Great Lakes The future of these Great Lakes--once contaminated they are hazardous--future generations will be cheated out of enjoying these lakes without fear of the "unknown". It's sheer folly to think it would still be safe no matter how deep the waste is buried by "experts". Storms on the Great Lakes have the power to shake up the depths of the water. What would happen after constant churning of this waste? Will they constantly monitor it??????