Essay On Yucca Mountain

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

The South Australian Government is looking into dumping high-level nuclear waste within the state and, what better place to house it then an already active nuclear waste site? In your backyard?

Studies have been performed on activities like disposing in the oceans, as well as on more exotic proposals such as deep geological disposal and launching into space. Some of these methods have been found wanting in terms of feasibility, costs and legal restrictions [1]. The management community in charge of nuclear waste disposal had come to the agreement that the only practical route for ensuring sufficient long-term isolation of HLW from the environment is deep geologic disposal[3].For example, Canada has focused on the concept of Deep Geological Disposal for long term management of nuclear wastes generated from nuclear activities. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is in charge of disposing radioactive wastes in the country. Canada’s long term management plan for used nuclear fuel is called “Adaptive Phased Management” [3] ,The plan is to confine and isolate the used fuel in a suitable host-rock with the help of a multiple barrier system. Selection of the site is based on screening of potential sites followed by a preliminary assessment of

The decision in the NWPAA to pick Yucca Mountain without any real selection process created one of the biggest altercations between groups and organizations interested in this policy. By picking a site in Nevada, a state with no nuclear reactors and a strong majority opinion against the construction of a repository, Congress pitted the entire state against the federal government and other states. Nevada residents are so opposed to the completion of the facility, polled at 76% in 2007 (Las Vegas Review-Journal), that it has become a requirement of anyone hoping to hold federal office in the state to feel the same sentiment. Because of this governors, senators, and representatives from Nevada all view the permanent closing of Yucca as a priority and adamantly oppose motions that would see the facility operational. Congressmen from Nevada try

The word “Nuclear” instills fear in the general American public’s mind. The simple utter of said word brings memories of huge mushrooms clouds and destruction, or the thought of communism and 50 years of an uncertain, yet terrifying Cold War. Whatever it may be the fact of the matter is that Americans are extremely afraid of anything that has the word Nuclear in it. In the article “Nuclear Waste” published in 2008 by physics professor, and winner of the MacArthur Fellowship award, Richard Muller claims that storing nuclear waste under the Nevada Yucca Mountains can prove to be a safe and efficient way to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Muller supports his argument by first providing the reader with the anti-nuke

I say nuclear waste should be stored in Texas rather than being stored in Washington because Texas is a very large state. Texas is a flat land where it’s surface is very flat and stable. It should be a good place to store nuclear waste because there is a low possibility of any earthquakes that can affect the nuclear waste. There is a low risk of any flooding near Texas. There aren’t many people. Texas can also handle up to 100 earthquakes so there isn’t a high risk that the volcanoes can damage any nuclear waste.

Sean Whaley wrote, “State to Keep Battling Yucca” for Las Vegas Review-Journal. Here we go again, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage controversy. The most irritating part of this debate brought up within this article is that the politicians fail to tell the whole truth. As I once informed Senator Reid, “When it come to nuclear waste it is easier to scare people to vote for you than telling the truth and the advantages for Nevada.” To sum up, the article; Nevada will fight all efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. According to the article Nevada will spend more than $7.5 million with a Virgina legal firm Egan and Associates. Hiring an out of state law firm is also irritating on the back of the largest tax increase passed by State

We are in much need for places to store this nuclear waste. One of the places researches believe may be the perfect place but also the worst place is Yucca Mountain. I believe they should store nuclear waste inside the Yucca Mountain. It is far away

Some scientists mind people that the South Australia Outback is the best, the safest, the most geologically and environmentally stable place on the planet to store the nuclear waste. (Valente,2016) However, as we know, Nuclear Waste is generally mixture of solids, liquids and gases which are produced during the generation of nuclear energy during fission, mining of uranium, nuclear research and weapons production. It is radioactive and that is the primary cause of the negative effects on human health and bodies. When humans are exposed to moderate radiation for a long time, it can lead to permanent problems and even lead to death. Nuclear waste radiation can damage or kill cells of people. Cancer is the primary health effect from radiation

The main radioactive waste to be discussed is waste produced by nuclear power. It was narrowed down to be the best possible waste site; an action oversaw by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (Wald, 2014). The progress was ceased with the election of Democratic President Barack Obama. The reason this is valuable is because this was the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, which gives reason to believe her policy would not change as the presidential race

The existing policy for American nuclear waste disposal was set fourth in 1982 with the passing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). What followed was an unpredictable series of management and policy design failures that led to the closing of Yucca Mountain as America’s federal nuclear waste repository, costing taxpayers billions and leaving the nation without long term option to deal with nuclear waste. The Act tasked the federal Department of Energy (DOE) with finding and investigating a location for two federal geologic depositories for nuclear waste, one in the West and one in the East, and construction of the facilities. It also named the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), a government organization that regulates the construction

Long term storage of nuclear waste has been a debated topic for many years. “The properties of nuclear waste that affect the disposal strategy include radioactivity, chemistry, and thermal output” (Long & Ewing, 2004). Nuclear waste contains uranium and plutonium that have exhausted their energy potential. These materials have a very long half-life, which is the amount of time it takes to lose half its energy, and some half-lives can take thousands of years. In 1982 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) mandated that the Department of Energy (DOE) create regulations to find a suitable site for long term storage. With that the DOE recommended Yucca Mountain as the number one option. Since then scientists have been studying the site to make sure

The purpose of the interview was to find out what people outside the environmental health major thought about the Yucca mountain situation. For my part of the project I needed to inform people about the politics and the ethological sides of the problem and see after all the information if they believe the site should be used for nuclear waste. I decided to interview by three roommates because none of them are Environmental Health majors and none of them knew much about nuclear waste or Yucca Mountain. For each of the three roommates I asked them questions about previous knowledge, after I told them about Yucca Mountain I asked them how they felt about the politics, science and ethics involved and lastly asked them their personal feelings towards

Nuclear waste needs a proper and safe place to be put in, because if you don't, you could put others lives in danger and contaminate certain things, such as the water supplies or the plants that the wildlife would have to eat for example, storing nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain would be a bad idea because the containers that they store nuclear waste in are known for corroding and leaking and eventually getting into the water supply in the ground. The Yucca Mountain would not be a safe place to store high level nuclear waste because the Yucca Mountain is an active volcano right now and if an earthquake should happen, the toxins from the nuclear waste would contaminate the water line in the ground.