Branch, James B.

The Waste Bin: Nuclear Waste Dumping and Storage in the

Pacific. Ambio 13 The South Pacific 1984: 327-330. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb
2014.

This article seems very well-written and informative. Its mostly a historical
account of dumping in the Pacific and its shortcomings, but explains a couple solutions
to the problem. It does a good job of portraying both sides of the argument, and
especially that of the nuclear waste dumpers. I feel that it could take better stances on
things, and have more of the authors views in it, but I think its useful overall. I agree
with the author that you dont throw the seeds of a poisonous fruit in the yard of your
neighbor: the Pacific Islanders dont benefit from nuclear power and only see its
downsides and negative effects in their environment. This just seems to be the most
logical thing to do pertaining waste siting. Why would you put your burdens onto
someone else? I also agree that we need to do more research in the effects of nuclear
waste dumping in ocean environments, and that the US needs to spend more time
doing comprehensive research on the effects of nuclear waste dumping. There have
been studies done that show that many of the underwater containers for waste are not
built to last, and are already leaking into the environment. Doing some more research
and investing into these waste containers seems like it should be the biggest part of
ocean dumping. We shouldnt have to trade off the health of the environment just to
bypass the problem of finding suitable land sites for nuclear waste, and even if we
absolutely have to, I believe there should be a huge effort to make dumping as safe as
possible.
One of the main faults this author has is a lack of real solutions to the problem
and his personal input into the situation. He states that nuclear dumping will go on
anyways, despite public opposition, and that trying to use petitions and organizations to
stop it fails, but then says that we need new groups to study the effects of ocean
dumping and come up with solutions, which, according to himself, fails. Something else
needs to be done, something like a policy change or taking a whole different route to the
problem. Beside that, though, the author does make some important points, one of them
which is the idea that the scientific community needs a scientific, evidence-based
reason to stop dumping, despite there being almost none. The largest one, though, is
the idea that only those who benefit from nuclear energy should take on the burden of
disposing of its waste, which is currently not happening.
This source is a little iffy to take solutions from, as most of the article goes over
historical events with nuclear dumping in the pacific. It is still useful, however, as it
highlights what specific solutions can be put into place to gain social acceptance, and it
especially helps with my main focus: land dumping. This article shows what happens
when sufficient land storage sites arent found, and the effects of other methods of
dumping on both social and environmental levels, and solidifies the idea that land
repositories are really the only way to solve our problem of nuclear waste.
Choi, Yearn Hong. Nuclear Waste Management: Gaining Public Acceptance. The
Journal of East Asian Affairs 19 Fall 2005: 225-261. JSTOR. Web. 7 Feb
2014.

This article is mostly focused on historical roadblocks to nuclear waste

management, but
does have a couple of solutions in it. It was written by a college professor, and seems
very well written and unbiased. I definitely agree with the author on his main point that in
order to get any kind of progress on nuclear waste siting, there needs to be major public
acceptance both locally and globally. Its pretty obvious that most of the developed world
is currently being used, and creating a sizable waste repository is going to intrude onto
other peoples property. A big part of this, as the author points out, is that we need to
prioritize waste dumping sites based off of areas that directly benefit from the energy
produced by the waste, so there is a better chance of acceptance. There will always be
the not in my backyard mindset, but we can lessen that effect by showing the people
what benefits they draw from nuclear power. One of the biggest issues in the US, as the
author points out, is that there is still a huge fear of nuclear energy, despite having no
really big internal disasters. This stigma is pretty prevalent in our society, and almost
anyone around the world can see that. Now, there have obviously been big disasters
regarding nuclear power, such as the Chernobyl incident, Three Mile Island, and the
more recent Fukushima scare. I believe that, even though there are some problems with
nuclear energy, the public should be more educated and be taught the real pros and
cons of it. Overall, I felt that this article was very well made and showed all the major
points in this debate of nuclear waste.
There are though, a couple spots where the author shows some faulty logic. I
dont believe that the government needs to manually force-feed every single person in
the world the reality of the problem of nuclear energy/waste, as the author says is
needed to gain public acceptance. This could lead to more stigma and hatred towards
the program, and is overall unfeasible to do. To take the other side, however, the author
also makes a very good point in that Modern man is alienated from himself, from his
fellow man, and from nature. He has been transformed into a commodity and that must
bring him the maximum profit under the existing market system. Man bows down and
submits to the demands of his own work, his machines, and his organization of
production and consumption it is a sad commentary on the the modern state of
relationships between man and his fellow man.... Environmental ethics could restore
these relationships. (256). This is a really important part of the argument, as he
highlights the importance of how we need to change the view of the public to fit a more
de-individualized ethic (even if it sounds really really Marxist).
Overall, I think this article is very useful to my research, as it shows both
historical and theoretical problems to the conflict of nuclear waste siting. The solutions
the author has are also very useful to create at least a template for necessary policy
changes. Personally, I agree with the authors main points, and I believe that the issue
of finding a place to put nuclear waste is a very big one, and one that will not go away,
and that the only way to solve the problem is to find a perfect site; one that is both
socially and scientifically sound, with the help of revamped nuclear education and the
idea of living better through advanced technology (259).

Easterling, Douglas. Fair Rules for Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste

Repository. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11 Summer 1992:
442-475. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb 2014.

This article is pretty standard: historical siting efforts and new siting efforts with
some potential solutions for acceptance. It is a bit unique, though, in referring to a
survey that measured how acceptance correlates with information given on safety and
legitimacy of the program, and other psychological methods to use on the public to gain
acceptance. I like the authors point of having to answer the why me? part of the
problem. To me, that seems like the best and easiest way to get someones approval:
being as transparent as possible. Once you get all the information out there, your
understanding becomes much more clear, and it is easier to make a rational decision.
Obviously, studies found that giving a satisfying answer to that question almost
immediately earns acceptance and tolerance, and so is essential for any kind of policy
change. One of my favorite solutions to the problem of siting the author brings up is by
allowing a voluntary siting proposal; acceptance is always the biggest hurdle to get over
projects that affect communities as a whole, and especially ones that could cause
damage to those communities when put in place. Another interesting point the author
makes is that it is inherently impossible to get full acceptance through persuasion, and
so finding the optimal site is impossible. I definitely agree with this; making a
repository in the absolute best place is useless if no one wants it there. The earlier
solution is perfect to overcome this: the priority of acceptance over effectiveness.
Almost anywhere can be at least usable for waste disposal.
There are a couple flaws in this article, though. It makes a huge logical leap in its
theory, assuming that peoples opinions and fears about a nuclear repository being built
in their backyards will automatically change through informing them of specifics of the
project. Many people already know how safe these facilities can be, and so will not be
persuaded. The author does make a good point, however, in trying to persuade through
moral arguments, trying to crack the psychology that causes the stigma of nuclear
waste disposal.
This is probably one of the most useful articles for my research, as it gives very
direct solutions to the problem of gaining public acceptance, and in very clever ways
too. Personally, I believe it is a good idea, even if it is slightly unethical, to use
psychological methods to persuade people to accept a nuclear waste project, and I
believe that one of the only ways to create a successful waste program is to be as
transparent as possible and allow everyone to see things on a global scale, and not just
have a knee-jerk reaction of not me! whenever the problem is brought up.

Sjberg, Lennart. Explaining Individual Risk Perception: The Case of

Nuclear Waste. Risk Management 6 2004: 51-64. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb 2014.

This article is very stat-heavy, and uses a lot of solid, concrete evidence to
explain risk perception. Its very unbiased, and almost all mathematical, but gives some
solutions to manage risks, one of the more important pieces of my research. I thought it
was really interesting how when risks are perceived, they are either seen as really big or
really small, varying from person to person. Im guessing that no one really wants to
consider nuclear waste as a moderate risk, as it really isnt. Either a waste repository
is 100% perfectly safe, or something happens and it becomes a huge risk to the
environment and community. Both that and the fact that people tend to go for opposing
sides, such as in our politics, seem like good reasons for this lack of middle ground. An
interesting find was that emotions didnt seem to be a large factor in the deciding
process. Asking about dread vs severity of consequences gave the same results,
which leads us to conclude that risk perception is about thoughts and beliefs instead of
emotions. This seems to contradict many other sources and common sense, and leads
me to believe that this article may not be very reliable. Most likely, when given the
choice in real life to build a waste repository in their community, many would use a
more emotional response. Another interesting point is that trust and transparency
doesnt affect risk perception as much as was previously thought, which goes against
some of the other solutions Ive found in other articles. This is another point that this
article makes that I have to be careful with, as it is very contradictory to many of the
potential solutions Ive found. The article also points out that those who are heavily
against a nuclear waste repository are grossly outnumbered by those who are heavily
for one, but because the opponents are louder, many politicians and policymakers get
the impression that there is heavy opposition everywhere. On first thought, this might
not make sense, but if you think about it, many people seem to be fine with nuclear
power, and are very much for it, but when you start looking at areas that nuclear energy
impacts you see a lot of opposition.
The author has one problem, though. His study is based off of a voluntary
response survey, which assures the data to only give extreme measurements; only
those who are fiercely for/against the proposal will respond, making the real average
opinion unknown. This could explain that lack of middle ground mentioned before. The
strongest part of his argument, then, is the concreteness of the article. Nothing is put up
to speculation, and all arguments the author makes are backed by statistics.
This source is very useful, as it gives me a good source of evidence for my
research, and a good pool of data. It also gives me some more possible solutions to the
problem of public acceptance of a nuclear waste repository.

Ever since we started utilizing nuclear power in the 50s, weve disputed what to
do with with spent fuel rods, and it has become a major headache for all the nuclear
powers around the world. Both government and private projects have been created to
try to come up with solutions to the problem of disposal of high-level nuclear waste,
which can only be stored safely while it slowly decays. Countries such as the US,
France, Germany, Japan, and Korea have all tried different methods of disposal, such
as dumping sealed containers into the ocean, commissioning islands to hold the waste,
or simply burying it, of which none have been really fully successful. One of the most
notable examples was the Yucca Mountain Repository, a USFG project to store waste in
a large mountain complex. However, there was huge political and social backlash, and
there were disputes on its safety and reliability. The project was scrapped in 2011 by the
Obama administration for political reasons, so the US currently relies on ocean dumping
methods to get rid of its high level waste, which is a much less safe, and sometimes
more controversial method. This is a temporary solution to a long-lasting problem, and
many countries are looking to find permanent, sustainable solutions to disposing of
nuclear waste.
The third largest nuclear-based economy, South Korea, has been one of the
most active countries in terms of searching for a solution to its nuclear waste. When
their nuclear program first started, the government immediately started secretly scouting
for repository sites, and came up with a list of about 90 candidate towns, which was
eventually narrowed down to three sites. Everything was set to be built when the
townspeople caught wind of the project, they set up an opposition so fierce, the
government was forced to abandon the project. Obviously, forcing the people to accept
a project through an authoritarian system didnt work. This was a perfect example of the
ethical challenges that comes with a project like this: the people cannot feel like they
have no choice, or are having a burden forced upon them. Every other time the
government tried to create a repository without the people knowing, it became public
quickly and was protested vehemently. Interestingly enough, the closest South Korea
ever came to creating a waste repository was when they held elections of towns, trying
to find a site that would be publicly accepted. Their downfall was the fact that the
choices were made open to the public: groups from towns that had voted against the
building of a repository went to those chosen towns and protested. The governments
next efforts were to try bribing communities to allow for construction of a waste
repository, offering about 3 trillion won, or 3 billion USD, to local governments. Again,
just like those initial efforts, this plan was protested because the people felt that they
had no say and were at the mercy of their local leaders. Koreas current situation looks
grim: spent fuel is now sent to facilities in Europe for reprocessing, and is kept there, in
temporary holding areas. A similar story can be said for many other countries around
the world, and is fast becoming a major problem for many of them. What we need is to
gain public acceptance first, through education and persuasion, in order to solve this
problem. Solving the problem in this fashion prevents any ethical or cultural
implications, and makes the projects more sustainable by reducing public tension.
Current nuclear waste policies are unsustainable and will possibly lead to a crisis in the
near future, especially as more and more of the world becomes populated and more
energy is used. We desperately need to figure out how to get the publics approval.
The situation is equally as bad in the USA, where projects were scrapped left and
right. One of these was the LLW (Low-Level Waste) policy of 1980, which ordered all 50
states to own and operate a low level waste processing facility. As you can see, it never
was followed, and only six regional facilities were ever made, each one currently filled to
the brim and unable to receive any more waste. The expectation by many state
governments was that their neighboring states would create one, so it ended up
creating a huge shortage of space. One possible solution that we can implement now,
however, is to try to eliminate the amount of low level waste that our reactors produce.
LLW is anything that has come into contact with radiation (300-500 years containment),
and is one of the easier nuclear byproducts to clean. According to waste engineer Clint
Miller, we can solve this problem through cleaning out resin beds more frequently and
changing packaging, we can reduce the amount of LLW created by our reactors. The
high level waste situation, as explained before, was supposed to be cleared up by the
Yucca Mountain project, but was stopped for political reasons. Obviously any future
solutions must be independent from political influence in order for it to be sustainable.
This may cause some cultural backlash, as we Americans like for everything to be on
one side of the argument or the other (or at least represented by someone important).
Again, not gaining public acceptance was also a very big part of the issue. Sustainability
is the main focus of these projects, and if there is tension among the locals, the project
cannot be very sustainable.
Of course, there is always the argument of why not somewhere else? Well,
many countries have turned to ocean dumping, most notably Japan, and it doesnt work
out well, and has been found to be much more harmful to the environment overall (but
less harmful to backyards). The pacific has always been a ritual dumping ground, and
nuclear waste is no exception. It also doesnt help that many nuclear capable countries
are surrounded by it. Even the US has disposed of nuclear waste, sinking about 100
obsolete nuclear submarines in its depths. Japan has been dumping waste since their
nuclear program began. One of the more promising methods of dumping is subseabed
disposal, in which barrels are stored underneath the seabed, up to 100 meters down.
The problem is, studies have found that, despite what is told by some scientists, the
contamination from dumping does not stay in a concentrated area, and instead diffuses
out over a huge area, and causes massive ecological damage. Obviously, this kind of
solution is, by far, not the most ecological or sustainable one. It also creates ethical
dilemmas, as this kind of dumping is putting the burden of dealing with the
contamination of nuclear waste onto other people, or in this case the pacific islanders,
who do not experience the benefits of nuclear power firsthand. The only reason this kind
of disposal method is used is because of public opposition to land repositories, and it is
used to simply avoid making hard decisions.
The reason why we still have this problem of dealing with nuclear waste is
simple: public opposition doesnt allow us to. Every solution that has been attempted
has been stopped by the fear and stigma attached to nuclear power, and with the idea
that land repositories destroy natural habitats. Ironically, the temporary solution that is in
place causes more ecological damage than any land repository would, and less people
are protesting it. Seeing this, we see that the real issue isnt that of environmental
destruction, but that of the Not In My BackYard (NIMBY) attitude, and the lack of
education the general public has with regards to nuclear energy. An article by Lennart
Sjberg, a Psychometrics expert, pointed out that, when surveyed, people with less
education tended to be against nuclear energy, and followed used very emotion-based
responses instead of personal beliefs, and typically responded much more harshly. The
first step to gaining real public acceptance and creating a socially sustainable waste
disposal project is to educate. People who know more will make better, more rational
decisions about things, and when a large scale project, such as the building of a large
waste repository, is being put into place, the more people know about it, the more likely
they are to understand the answer to the why me, and get rid of the NIMBY attitude. I
believe that the best solution is to plan a nuclear waste repository that can be proven to
not cause any kind of environmental damage, and explain every inner working of it to
the general public while avoiding any kind of political influence, we can create a healthy,
sustainable solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal. And although nuclear
energy itself isnt fully sustainable, it is still possible to create enough repositories to
store all of our spent fuel. The problem is being able to see what prevented the
construction of these facilities in the first place.