Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear WasteUniversity of California Press, 1993 M12 3 - 368 pages Shrader-Frechette looks at current U.S. government policy regarding the nation's high-level radioactive waste both scientifically and ethically. What should be done with our nation's high-level radioactive waste, which will remain hazardous for thousands of years? This is one of the most pressing problems faced by the nuclear power industry, and current U.S. government policy is to bury "radwastes" in specially designed deep repositories. K. S. Shrader-Frechette argues that this policy is profoundly misguided on both scientific and ethical grounds. Scientifically—because we cannot trust the precision of 10,000-year predictions that promise containment of the waste. Ethically—because geological disposal ignores the rights of present and future generations to equal treatment, due process, and free informed consent. Shrader-Frechette focuses her argument on the world's first proposed high-level radioactive waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Analyzing a mass of technical literature, she demonstrates the weaknesses in the professional risk-assessors' arguments that claim the site is sufficiently safe for such a plan. We should postpone the question of geological disposal for at least a century and use monitored, retrievable, above-ground storage of the waste until then. Her message regarding radwaste is clear: what you can't see can hurt you. |
Contents
| 1 | |
2 Understanding the Origins of the Problem | 11 |
3 Reliance on Value Judgments in Repository Risk Assessment | 27 |
4 Subjective Estimates of Repository Risks | 39 |
5 Subjective Evaluations of Repository Risks | 75 |
6 Problematic Inferences in Assessing Repository Risks | 103 |
An Obstacle to Geological Disposal | 160 |
An Obstacle to Geological Disposal | 182 |
9 An Alternative to Permanent Geological Disposal | 213 |
Notes | 253 |
| 329 | |
| 337 | |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
100th Congress acceptable affirming the consequent appeal to authority appeal to ignorance argue Carson City chapter claim conclusions DOE assessors Environmental epistemic logic equity estimates ethical Evaluation example Fernald fracture flow free informed consent future persons geological repositories groundwater groundwater travel Hanford hazards Hence hereafter cited High-Level Nuclear Waste high-level radioactive waste high-level radwaste high-level waste informed consent Interim Storage Item logic long-term Maxey Flats members of future ment methodological value judgments migration models monitored Moreover NMRS facilities nuclear fission Nuclear Power Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste Policy permanent disposal permanent geological disposal permanent repository predictions present persons problematic problems proposed Radioactive Waste Management radionuclides reactors reason repository risk Risk Assessment safety Sandia National Labs scientific scientists Shrader-Frechette Sinnock spent fuel studies tion Tuff U.S. Congress U.S. Department U.S. DOE U.S. Government Printing U.S. Senate uncertainties uranium Washington Waste Management Waste Project Office Younker Yucca Moun
Popular passages
Page xiv - For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are...
Page xii - Expert Judgment in Assessing Radwaste Risks." Any opinions expressed in this book, however, are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of either the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Energy, or the state of Nevada.