I sent this over an hour ago, but it didn't show up (although the tobacco one made it through), hence a resend.
Both low-level (the Carlsbad WHIP site) and high-level (Yucca Mt. in Nevada) waste is considered at court: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3978367/ "WASHINGTON - The Energy Department has not done the necessary tests to justify relaxing the testing of radioactive waste shipments bound for a New Mexico storage site, a panel of scientists said Thursday... "...A report by a panel of scientists appointed by the National Research Council � a division of the National Academies of Science � said Energy has not done adequate studies to support its argument for easing regulations and those analyses should be done before it seeks to modify the state waste disposal permit. However, a provision backed by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and signed into law last month by President Bush orders the Energy Department to request that New Mexico relax its testing requirements and restricts the state�s ability to refuse the request. �This is another example of the management failures coming from the highest levels of DOE,� said New Mexico Environment Secretary Ron Curry. �It is another example of DOE putting the cart before the horse and making unfounded assumptions to the detriment of New Mexicans.� "The Carlsbad facility buries transuranic waste � such as gloves, rags, tools, dried sludge and other debris contaminated during nuclear weapons making � in ancient salt beds 2,150 feet below ground..." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3937487/ "Opponents of a planned nuclear waste dump in Nevada argued in court Wednesday the U.S. government has failed to ensure that the public will be protected when radiation from the entombed waste reaches its peak hundreds of thousands of years from now. Attorneys for Nevada and an environmental group asked a three-judge panel to reject the Bush administration�s plan for storing highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert unless it can be shown protective radiation standards can be met at least 300,000 years into the future, when some of the isotopes are most dangerous... "...Two of the three judges sharply questioned why the EPA chose the 10,000-year mark and noted that a National Academies of Science report suggests a danger long beyond that. The NAS report is �absolutely clear ... that 10,000 years is incorrect,� Judge Harry Edwards told a Justice Department attorney. "Edwards and Judge David Tatel repeatedly asked the government attorney why the EPA rejected the NAS recommendation when, they said, that Congress specifically required the NAS findings to be taken into account... "...Christopher Vaden, representing the Justice Department, said the EPA selected the 10,000-year mark for its radiation exposure standard because of policy considerations as well as scientific issues..." Debbi At One Time They Considered Shooting It Into Space Maru __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
