RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

No answer on waste issue



Toolbox

Published: June 29, 2009

In his 6/25 editorial , Entergy's Mr. Thayer appears to have given up on finding a state that will accept a burial ground for Vermont Yankee's spent fuel now stored on the banks of the Connecticut River. Now Mr. Thayer thinks he is giving us hope that our children and grandchildren can learn to reprocess the deadly stuff. He refers to the success of the Areva nuclear fuel processing plant — La Hague in France where spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. La Hague acknowledges that it is intentionally dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the ocean while the incidence of childhood cancer is rampant in the area surrounding that plant.

Before George Bush left office, the U.S. EPA had radically increased permissible public exposure to radiation in drinking water, including a nearly 1,000-fold increase in permissible concentrations of strontium-90, 3,000- to 100,000-fold for iodine-131, and a nearly 25,000 increase for nickel-63. The relaxation of these radiation protection regulations had been sought for years by the nuclear industry and its allies in the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

In the most extreme case, the new standards permit radionuclide concentrations seven million times more lax than permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act and would permit public exposure to radiation levels vastly higher than EPA had previously deemed unacceptably dangerous. The public did not get to comment on these changes. What exactly is the radioactive waste that is now being discharged into the Connecticut River. When will our Vermont Department of Public Health start reporting on the trends of cancer incidence rising in Vermont? And Entergy and the NRC thinks its OK to continue to build up the stockpile of the radioactive waste here in Vermont because no one else will accept it. Mr. Thayer should live in Vernon as Entergy spokesman.

KATHLEEN KREVETSKI

Rutland








READER COMMENTS


In reply to Mr. Schaffer, I would hope most folks would notice the haphazard approach he takes to debating Mrs. Krevetski. His comparing "radioacticity" is bwyond the pale. Finally he just might have forgotten that Marie Curie died from.......... radioactive poisoning!
-- Posted by R. WilliamL on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 10:29 am EST

report this comment



Ms. Krevetski can take action to get the used fuel out of Vermont. She can contact Senators Laheay and Sanders and ask them to have Sen. Reid to get Nevada to stop opposing the national repository at Yucca Mountain.

To calm herself she can find out how much radioactivity is in Vermont's granite and how much of it gets into the air, water, and her body.

Radioacticity and radiation are natural - like sunlight. As with all things, too much, or too little causes harm.

Ms. Krevetski might also want to consider the words of a great lady of science, winner of two Noble prizes- Marie Curie. "Nothing is to be feared, everything is to be understood."

Ms. K's letter is classic fear tactics. She says numbers have been increased, giving the underlying impression that this is bad. Prove it instead.

Howard Shaffer
-- Posted by Howard Shaffer on Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 8:00 am EST

report this comment



Is Ms. Krevetski's data correct? For example, did the EPA increase the permissible concentration of iodine-131 in drinking water by a factor of 100,000?

This may be true. I have no idea. I would hope, however, that before publishing this letter, the op-ed staff of the Herald would confirm that the numbers are correct. Not to do so would be incredibly irresponsible.
-- Posted by Mr. Moderate on Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 9:27 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout