OUR VIEW: Looking at both sides of nuclear power issue
The public is freaked out about storing nuclear waste because they think we just dump it into a large hole and cover it up. That is not how it works anymore. Nuclear waste is now being permanently isolated in glass and concrete containers then stored in vaults deep in the earth in one of a few remote sites. There is no argument that disposal of nuclear waste in the past was irresponsible and damaging to the environment, but we have now moved into an age of environmental responsibility. Companies now pride themselves on how “green” they are or how well they treat the environment.
Due to international agreements, spent nuclear fuel rods cannot be reprocessed because of the high levels of energy that can be extracted and potentially used to make weapons. With the research that is being done at USU and other institutions, we will be able to recycle the nuclear “waste” by reprocessing it, resulting in less waste and more energy. It is just another form of recycling. This concept is no different than that of plastic bottles and aluminum cans. We take the byproducts of our human existence and reuse them instead of burying them in the ground. Spent nuclear fuel rods are dangerous; however, if these byproducts can be carefully and safely turned into useful energy, thereby reducing the amount of man-made waste permanently going into the ground, we can effective reduce our ecological footprint while simultaneously bringing much needed energy to the nation.
Since mankind will never give up nuclear power research, we must work toward the scientific discovery of new methods of effectively reducing and managing the waste products produced by its processing.
The Other Side
Nuclear energy is clean, cheap and much more efficient than fossil fuels. In a world paranoid about the state of the polar ice caps and drowning polar bears, it seems the logical and practical step in energy production. Nuclear energy has come a long way since its early use as a weapon, showing that something capable of striking fear into the hearts of people the world over also has the potential to give equal hope. It is the glittering wave of the future, launching us into the long-awaited future written about and drawn by science-fiction visionaries during the last century. In 1958, Ford proposed a nuclear-powered car, cleverly called the Nucleon. It was supposed to be the car of the future, even though at the time the concept car would have required the use of a radiation suit to drive. Unfortunately, the vision of such a bright future using a virtually perfect energy source never really considered the waste of such energy. Nuclear energy’s intense power is probably its most attractive quality. That quality, though, can also be a huge downside when the storage of spent nuclear rods is to be considered.
Yes, nuclear storage and recycling has come a long way in the last few decades; however, do we really know if it is safe yet? After all, it took decades for the downwinders of Southern Utah to prove their numerous health problems were caused by the supposedly “safe” nuclear tests in the 1940s and ‘50s. The storage of nuclear waste is particularly applicable to us because the West, including Utah, has been chosen as prime dumping ground for this waste. Why is this? While it is a good economic opportunity for the state, what with all those companies and other countries paying us to hold their garbage, what does that say about us?
Which leads to another question: If the current storage of nuclear waste is so safe, why do other countries, Italy, as an example, want it to be as far away from them as possible? It must be totally, completely safe for them to want to put it halfway across the world.
Luckily, Utah politicians aren’t too keen on the idea, either. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Salt Lake, is currently promoting a bill to make taking foreign radioactive waste, at least, illegal.
This is a tough issue. Perhaps only time will give us the data needed to understand and make educated judgments about this difficult issue.