Department of Energy proposes recycling radioactive scrap metal for consumer products

www.andrelassen.com*Source: Washingtonsblog.com
http://www.andrelassen.com*
Source: Washingtonsblog.com

An article entitle, “Government to dispose of radioactive waste by putting it in our silverware,” is published by Washingtonsblog.

The author reports on the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent proposal to allow, “14,000 of it’s metric tons of radioactive scrap metal to be recycled into consumer products.”   Congressman Ed Markey has expressed “grave concern” about DOE’s radioactive proposal, according to the article.   An article from 1998 Progressive report on the DOE’s nuclear waste dilemma is included to say:

“The Department of Energy has a problem: what to do with millions of tons of radioactive material. So the DOE has come up with an ingenious plan to dispose of its troublesome tons of nickel, copper, steel and aluminum. It wants to let scrap companies collect the metal, try to take the radioactivity out, and sell the metal to foundries, which would in turn sell it to manufacturers who could use it for everyday household products: pots, pans, forks, spoons, even your eyeglasses.”

A Bloomberg report from last year is also quoted:

“The major risk we face in our industry is radiation,” said Paul de Bruin, radiation-safety chief for Jewometaal Stainless Processing, one of the world’s biggest stainless-steel scrap yards. “You can talk about security all you want, but I’ve found weapons-grade uranium in scrap. Where was the security?

Einstein once said, “Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.”  Storage of the radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants is an issue that has not yet been resolved.  Counterpunch wrote this about the new radioactive recycling proposal, according to Washington Blogs:

Having failed in the ‘80s and ‘90s to free the nuclear bomb factories and national laboratories of millions of tons of their radioactively contaminated scrap and nickel, the DOE is trying again. Its latest proposal is moving ahead without even an Environmental Impact Statement. Those messy EISs involve public hearings, so you can imagine the DOE’s reluctance to face the public over adding yet more radiation to the doses we’re already accumulating.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s