Victory in Yucca Mountain Lawsuit;

Their radiation is not curing anything, it's proliferating a cancer that only changing the offending agent will solve.

Anybody familiar with the old formerly Utilized Sites remedial ACtion program (FUSRAP) This was a program that went out and located old piles of nuke **** left over from WWII Manhattan proj. There is junk all over and because the nuke repository wasnt sited or built or licensed, this crap is gonna sit around in your neighborhood.
Also theres the uranium Mill Tailings (UMTRAP) program where they mined and made yellow cake .Those sites are mostly in the nM, colo, Utah , Nev and one or two in Oregon. Theres a big pile right next to Shiprock in Colo, It blows heavy U dust all over rt I25.

Im frustrated that the entire process will now probably stop because we cant overcome the political inertia. Even though the people who oppose the Yucca Mtn site have good intentions, they know nothing of the chronic exposure(mostly to kidsin the west) that this program termination will insure.
Theres a site near gunnison that , every time the wind blows dust around, the entire 100+ mi square area then carries a dose in the tens of thousands of pico curies. So here we aremore worried about ground water contact 300000 years hence when weve got an acute dosage concern in an area near populated areas
My take is, this site should be approved and built and all the high level nuke crap should be scraped up and packed up, sent to the Yucca site and we build in a ground water treatment system to handle TRITIUM (cause, in reality, thats the only nuclide that is even slightly mobile) all the U'topes have kd values thaat are friggin huuuge,so the stuff wont migrate but a few inches per ten millenia. The ground water models used by the interveners are mostly "outcome based" not forensic. You feed into them the data you wanna see and they will spit out your desired answer. Then the courts , who are not scientists, dont knbow who to trust

There are a lot of frustrated scientists out there who feel that they are failing to explain properly the risk/ management consequences to the people in the "stakeholder" group.
I think scientists are mistrusted like used car salesmen.It just frosts my shorts.

It frosts your shorts, ay? I like that!
But the Academy of sciences are scientists, aren't they?
One other point; I don't have much faith that the time spans cited are even realistic, whether 10,000 or 300,000 years. I mean, we're always being told we can handle so many rads or whatever, 10 parts per billion, lets say, and 20 years later the health industry finds that was very wrong, and we can only handle 2 parts per billion.
10,000 years might really mean 40!
People downwind from many types of manufacturing facilities have much higher rates of cancers and serious birth defects. What the heck are we gonna do, with the EPA minimizing every risk?
There must be other sites like Yucca Mountain in the world somewhere, if such a site is the only solution.
Just lets stop producing the **** and I'll make it my life's work to find out how to store the **** we've already accumulated.

rads are measures of radiation , not concentration. Youre mixing units. Lets at least use a common frame of reference.
I guess Ive fallen off thhe truck. Your last statement needs further explanation , you seem to be on 3 distinct parallel concern paths.

Yes, well I'm no expert. Like I said: "so many rads or whatever". I didn't start a dialog strictly about nukes. I'm hoping to touch on other issues as well. I don't think there is a satisfactory answer for nuclear waste. My curiosity is more about the EPA in general, and our own lack of sensibilities in these areas.