501 



are available on most of the candidate rock types even 30 years after wastes began 

 to accumulate from weapons development. These rocks include granite types, ba- 

 salts, and shales. Furthermore, we are only just now learning about the problem of 

 water in salt beds, and the need for careful measurements of water in (salt) domes." 



The Science article concludes with the following: "In light of the consensus that 

 seems to be emerging, that the present waste program lacks a sure scientific footing, 

 some surprising developments may be in the offing. There could, for instance, be 

 some deemphasis of salt as the preferred geologic medium in favor of a broader and 

 deeper investigation of the available alternatives. These might even include an 

 examination of such nonconventional approaches as disposal of wastes in super-deep 

 holes and emplacement in the deep seabed." 



Well, disposal in super-deep holes is covered in Appendix C of the OSTP draft 

 report of 3 July 1978. It says, "At least ten years of R & D with a level of several 

 millions of dollars per year, would be required to develop this proposed concept to a 

 level that would warrant a demonstration with radioactive wastes." This means, of 

 course, that the safety question is at least ten years away from being tested. 



And, "emplacement in the deep seabed" brings us back to "square one," which 

 has previously shown to be currently unacceptable from the view of safety. So we 

 are faced with the dilemma of leaking and overcrowded storage facilities now, that 

 need replacement based on another decade of continued research with uncertain 

 results even then. 



At this point in the discussion, it can be clearly seen that the safety problem of 

 nuclear waste disposal in the ocean, the sky, or the land, is unsolved. This fact is 

 the basis of California's moratorium on additional nuclear power plant construction. 

 It is also the basis for a Congressional committee's similar recommendation that: "3. 

 Congress and the executive branch should consider requiring that further licenses 

 for nuclear powerplant construction be conditioned upon the timely and satisfactory 

 resolution of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel permanent disposal and 

 storage problems." (Nuclear Power Costs, Committee on Government Operations, 

 Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Leo J. Ryan, Califor- 

 nia, Chairman.) 



ALTERNATIVES TO DISPOSAL 



Aside from its scientific uncertainties, the entire "disposal" approach to nuclear 

 waste management violates an obvious common sense observation that disposal will 

 never yield a truly safe solution. There is no place to safely "hide" radioactivity, 

 even though it is invisible. And the only acceptable safety, when we are dealing 

 with the survivial of all life on Earth, is "zero errors," not so-called "scientific" 

 guestimates about radioactive behavior over a million years based on 30 years of 

 actual experience. 



And the whole emerging story about long-term health and genetic hazards from 

 even low-level radiation suggests an imminent world-wide cancer epidemic on hu- 

 manity's doorstep. (Dr. Helen Caldecot, of Australia, has documented this situation, 

 and it is included in Appendix D herein.) 



We have fouled our own nest with deadly poisons, and seeking to "dispose" of our 

 wastes is akin to sweeping them under the rug or throwing them overboard. Unfor- 

 tunately, radioactivity, like the feared "monkey's paw," has an incredible way of 

 "migrating," as scientists say, back into the plant, fish, animal, and human environ- 

 ment. (If Plutonium sounds bad, be prepared for a shock when you read the effects 

 of Americium which uptakes readily into the plant kingdom. 



Finally, mere "disposal" methods are an attempt to lock the gate after the 

 nuclear nightmare has already escaped and spread radioactive pollution into the 

 land, the seas, and the atmosphere. 'The day of reckoning is at hand. For even if a 

 miracle occurred today — with world peace achieved, nuclear arms dismantled, and 

 all radioactive production halted — the wastes we already have produced might still 

 kill all life on planet Earth. 



It is absolutely imperative that some alternatives must be sought which are not 

 based on a fatally illusionary "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" disposal decision. The 

 "genie must be put back into the bottle," (or the devil back into the pit, if you 

 prefer), if true safety is to be accomplished. Of course, this general approach smacks 

 of the impossible. But if we are better off safe than sorry (or worse, doomed), then 

 necessity must surely be the mother of invention in this case. And invention by 

 definition, accomplishes the impossible. After all, it was Archimedes, not the poets, 

 politicians, priests, or businessmen, who invented the solution to a Roman fleet that 

 outnumbered the Greek town ten to one. Not one Roman ever reached shore from 

 their burning ships. 



