Trump plans to reclassify nuclear waste - Make America Glow Again

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
This thread got me to look up "radioactive waste". Yikes!

"Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radionuclides remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia."

You'd think it's not worth producing it in the first place. Yet, they are going full steam ahead on reopening the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. I'm sure many other places too.

I'm not entirely sure why they highlighted plutonium - 239 , as it can be used as fissile nuclear fuel.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The proposal by the U.S. Department of Energy would lower the status of some high-level radioactive waste in several places around the nation, including the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state — the most contaminated nuclear site in the country.

Reclassifying the material to low-level could save the agency billions of dollars and decades of work by essentially leaving the material in the ground, critics say.

From the linked article, "The Energy Department wants to reclassify some of the waste that meets highly technical conditions." Those would be conditions like "not actually being highly radioactive"?

Actual DOE proposal is here: Federal Register :: Request for Public Comment on the U.S. Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive Waste

Maybe "highly technical conditions" means that the journalist couldn't be bothered reading the proposal?
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Was that a selective misunderstanding of my post? And why am I even considering a post that says Trump has made no reasoned decisions at all? Of course I am on "one of those threads" that spew things that are clearly untrue, so...
Tillerson and others, including Trump have said he decides most things based on his “gut feeling”. These things are, by definition, not “reasoned”.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,122
Los Angeles Area
✟820,574.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Rrright, and?

And that means that experts at the DOE have looked at this situation for 30 years.

Are you certain that there are no experts on the subject that have looked at this before it even made it to Trump?

Oh, I doubt Trump was directly involved. In the OP title, "Trump" is being used as a synechdoche for the Administration as a whole. But former EPA head Scott Pruitt, who fought the EPA, and acting EPA head Andrew Wheeler, who lobbied against environmental regulations, self-confessedly do not listen to experts on scientific subjects. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." And now these foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse.

The DOE/EPA has been on something of a campaign against nuclear safety at Hanford.

Limiting safety oversight at the facility.
Fighting the state of Washington over worker health at the facility.
And now this reclassification of high level waste.

Or maybe I should just ask what is the range of your expertise in this field

I have a MS in physics and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has my name on their big list of everyone who has handled a certain amount of radioactive material. I don't claim any specific expertise on nuclear waste disposal, but I will bet $100 that I know more about the situation than the corporate lobbyist running the EPA.

why won't it work?

Work? Of course you can reclassify high level radioactive waste as low level radioactive waste. But this does not change how dangerous the material is. Handling it unwisely could expose the residents of the state of Washington to unnecessary health risks. The government has made certain promises to the state, and under this Administration, they are weaseling out of them.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Of course you can reclassify high level radioactive waste as low level radioactive waste. But this does not change how dangerous the material is.

Well, it's a good thing that they're not actually doing that then, right?

I take it you haven't read the actual proposal?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,122
Los Angeles Area
✟820,574.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
From the linked article, "The Energy Department wants to reclassify some of the waste that meets highly technical conditions." Those would be conditions like "not actually being highly radioactive"?

They can reclassify if it "Does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility as demonstrated through a performance assessment conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements."

So if we don't have to bury it, we don't have to bury it, and we will determine whether we need to bury it with a performance assessment. This is not exactly clear-cut definitional stuff.

I'm sorry, but the current EPA management does not have much credibility. In the 1980s, we were pretty cavalier about throwing isotopes around in order to fight the Cold War. I can't imagine that the rules developed back then were too restrictive.

Well, it's a good thing that they're not actually doing that then, right?

I tske it you haven't read the actual proposal?

No, that is exactly what they are doing. Yes, I've read it.

"DOE [now] interprets the statutory term such that some reprocessing wastes [that are currently classified as high level waste] may be [re]classified as not HLW"
 
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
The proposal by the U.S. Department of Energy would lower the status of some high-level radioactive waste in several places around the nation, including the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state — the most contaminated nuclear site in the country.

Reclassifying the material to low-level could save the agency billions of dollars and decades of work by essentially leaving the material in the ground, critics say.

I'm sure people knew things like this may happen when they voted for a businessman.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In other news, NOAA has declared that Category 1,2,3,4 and 5 hurricanes will be reclassified to “Really Big Storms”. This will save lots and lots of money on emergency warnings and stuff.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,122
Los Angeles Area
✟820,574.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Well, good morning to you too, Mr. Thesaurus.

You'll never know how long I spent dithering over whether to call it a synecdoche or a metonym. And then I spelled it wrong. That'll teach me to dig deep before my second cup of coffee.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,938
Baltimore
✟551,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You'll never know how long I spent dithering over whether to call it a synecdoche or a metonym. And then I spelled it wrong. That'll teach me to dig deep before my second cup of coffee.

:scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Tillerson and others, including Trump have said he decides most things based on his “gut feeling”. These things are, by definition, not “reasoned”.

"Most things"? And your comment most likely means nothing because this is very likely not one of those things.

Why are some of you even responding to me, you aren't saying anything at all.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And that means that experts at the DOE have looked at this situation for 30 years.

And here I am still with the "and?"

Oh, I doubt Trump was directly involved. In the OP title, "Trump" is being used as a synechdoche for the Administration as a whole.

Thanks for back peddling and trying to switch this from the mindless Trump bash it really is, to something seemingly more reasonable.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The question is, would that be OK to do that? Is there a margin of safety there from past evaluations that may well be worth considering, and looking for a happy medium? Can it be rerated safely?

No offense, Hank, but I just don't believe anyone here has knowledge enough to act as they are on this thread, and it's just another mindless Trump can't do anything right thread, before anyone even thinks about what's really going on.
:sigh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Am I to assume you could not respond? Did you find a problem with my post, I mean a sigh is a pretty broad statement and it's tough to nail down just what your getting at, or is it you can't refute what I said? What?
 
Upvote 0