Automobiles
Job Market
Real Estate
Personals
All Classifieds
  Quick News
NYT Front Page
Arts
Business
Health
International
National
New York Region
Obituaries
Politics
Science
Sports
Technology
Weather
Corrections
  Editorials / Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions
  Automobiles
Books
Cartoons
Crossword/Games
Job Market
Living
Magazine
Movies
Photos
Real Estate
Travel
Week in Review
Special:
Summer Movies
 Boston.com
College Times
Learning Network
New York Today
NYT Store
 Archives
E-Cards & More
Help Center
Media Kit
NYT Mobile
Our Advertisers
 Home Delivery
Customer Service
Review Profile
E-Mail Options
Log Out
Text Version
Welcome, sdolley  
Sign Up for Newsletters  |  Log Out
  
Go to Advanced Search

June 3, 2001

Spent Nuclear Fuel


Hard Questions on Nuclear Power (May 29, 2001)

o the Editor:

The otherwise sensible "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29) states that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel "could greatly ease the storage problem" posed by such fuel. Reprocessing would actually make the waste problem worse because it would create several high- volume radioactive waste streams requiring storage, treatment and burial. The ill-fated experiment with commercial reprocessing at West Valley, N.Y., abandoned in 1972, vastly increased the amount of nuclear waste and has cost taxpayers more than $1.5 billion for cleanup.

Reprocessing also produces plutonium that can be used in weapons, which is much more costly to store and safeguard than the spent fuel from which it is separated. And since it is not technically feasible to recycle plutonium as fuel more than once, reprocessing does not eliminate the need for a repository for spent fuel; it simply defers it.

EDWIN S. LYMAN

Scientific Director, Nuclear Control Institute

Washington, May 29, 2001

Home | Back to Opinion | Search | Help Back to Top






Post a Job on
NYTimes.com


Click Here to Receive 50% Off Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper.


Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information