Debates on nuclear waste
ensue following discussions in D.C.
By Anna Herkamp
Summer
Reporter
For those United States citizens who fear living
with nuclear power, worries may be either subsided or stirred up after
the Bush administration began discussions on the implementation of new
nuclear power plants on June 18.
This may have people worried; however, many Purdue
officials say there is nothing to worry about.
Robert Bartlett, associate professor of political
science, said the question isn't a matter of whether or not to have
nuclear power, but rather, it's a trade off.
There won't be the problem with fossil fuel pollution;
however, the risk involved is more long term, he said. The problem has
to do with storing hazardous waste over a long period of time.
The main area under consideration for storage is
Yucca Mountain, Nev. Paul Ziemer, professor emeritus of health sciences,
said the people who live in the Yucca Mountain area don't want someone
else's waste in "their back yard." But there is no scientific evidence
to prove that people have been ill because of living near a normally
functioning nuclear power plant, he said.
"The nuclear industry is the only industry that
stores its own waste. This could be seen as more of a solution than
a problem," said Martin Lopez-De-Bertodano, associate professor of nuclear
engineering.
"If fossil fuels were stored rather than emitted
into the atmosphere, global warming wouldn't even be an issue," he said.
He said recycling nuclear waste and using it again
as fuel, is a possibility and would require more development and research.
Another advantage of nuclear power, according to
Bartlett, is eliminating many cases of cancer and other sickness from
traditional power sources. There is evidence that people have gotten
cancer from coal burning facilities.
James Mccann, associate professor of political
science, said he would rather see more conservation than use of nuclear
power.
"Nuclear power is a great alternative assuming
they can crack the problem of nuclear waste," he said. After radioactive
material is no longer useful, it still remains hazardous, he said. "I'd
like to see more of us consider energy conservation. We do waste an
awful lot," he said.
As much as nuclear power stands to benefit consumers
with faster, more efficient means of creating electricity, there are
those who believe that nuclear power is a terrible idea.
John Taylor, chair of the Five Rivers Group of
the Sierra Club in Indiana, said most of the problem exists in the waste
management.
Because nuclear waste takes so long to decay, its
decay is measured in half-lives, meaning the amount of time it takes
for half of an amount of material to decay. If, after a long amount
of time, one half of nuclear material decays, there is still that much
radioactive material left to decay, he said.
While traditional forms of electricity also cause
pollution, materials such as these are absorbed into the earth eventually,
and it leaves no problem for future generations to deal with, Taylor
said.
Radioactive material, on the other hand, exists
for a long time and will get into the food chain eventually, he said.
After the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine in 1986,
a radioactive material called Strontium 40 got into soil in northern
Europe and was eventually passed onto cows through the grass they ate.
The material wound up in milk, thus passing on to the human populations
as well.
Taylor said they should explore other ways of producing
energy, such as wind and solar power. These methods do not create pollution
at all and would benefit people for generations to come, he said.
He said the main reason for opening the nuclear
power discussion again seems to be that it is a way for the owners and
investors of power plants to make money. It has nothing to do with more
efficient power, he said. If they were to switch to other alternative,
clean methods, these companies wouldn't be making the money that they
would with nuclear power plants, he said.
Taylor also said that he doesn't know how people
can say a major explosion like Chernobyl can't happen. "Accidents can
happen. Knowing there is a better and cheaper way to produce power and
set up the public (for potential danger) is criminal," he said.
Helen Steussy, a pathologist at the Henry Co. Memorial
Hospital, said according to "Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search
of Our Environmental Future," by Mark Hertsgaard, people were indeed
affected by the radiation from Chernobyl's explosion.
According to the book, approximately 50, 000 to
250, 000 deaths occurred in the former Soviet Union, and that same number
of people around the world will die in the future because of Chernobyl.
Radiation even transcended to the United States.
Asked if she thinks the United States is subject
to this sort of catastrophe, she asks, "How many things do you know
that never have accidents? There is no safe way to get rid of waste."
The issue still remains open for discussion. Approximately
20 percent of the United States' power comes from nuclear power plants.
|
