Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear WasteUniversity of California Press, 1993 M12 3 - 346 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
Legal and Regulatory | 21 |
3 | 27 |
4 | 39 |
Value Judgments about Model Reliability | 50 |
Value Judgments about Reliability of Sampling | 56 |
Value Judgments that Interpolations | 66 |
Problems with Yucca Mountain versus Problems | 72 |
Value Judgments that Risk Reductions | 80 |
Conclusion | 157 |
Extensive Nonquantifiable Uncertainty | 169 |
Faulty | 175 |
Conclusion | 181 |
Consent and Permanent Disposal | 195 |
Practical and Legal Considerations against Disposal | 207 |
An Alternative to Permanent Geological Disposal | 213 |
Independent Technical and Review Committees | 219 |
Value Judgments that Average Risks | 86 |
Value Judgments about Singlesite Studies | 94 |
Conclusion | 101 |
Problematic Inferences in Assessing Repository Risks | 103 |
TwoValued Epistemic Logic and the Appeal | 114 |
Begging the Question | 121 |
The Expertise Inference | 127 |
The Linearity Inference | 134 |
Specious Accuracy | 141 |
The Appeal to Authority | 149 |
Public Defender for the Future | 227 |
Objections to NMRS Facilities | 236 |
Does NMRS Unrealistically Seek Zero Risk? | 243 |
Conclusion | 249 |
6 | 278 |
220 | 304 |
329 | |
337 | |
339 | |
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 Federal Interim Storage 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 inference informed consent Item Kasperson logic long-term Maxey Flats members of future ment methodological value judgments migration models Moreover NMRS facilities NMRS sites Nuclear Power Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste Policy permanent disposal permanent geological disposal permanent repository predictions present persons problems proposed Radin Radioactive Waste Radioactive Waste Management radionuclides reactors reason repository risk Risk Assessment safety Sandia National Labs Science 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 Washington Waste Management Waste Project Office Younker