Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Fluoride, uranium, and nuclear power are all interrelated scams.

The processing of uranium would be impossible without fluoride. Fluoride dissolves uranium as uranium hexafluoride.

The uranium industry uses vast quantities of fluoride to make uranium. Uranium production produces vast quantities of fluoride waste. Workers and those who live around uranium facilities are fluoride poisoned.

The uranium and nuclear power industries were among the first to promote the fluoridation of drinking water as a way to put a happy face on fluoride and defeat claims made against nuclear facilities for damage caused by fluoride emitted in the uranium production process.

See: Karl Grossman Nuclear Power: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive–Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman.

The cost of storing nuclear waste is astronomical. Beyond Nuclear posts this analysis:

GAO confirms that dry casks may need to be replaced every century, at huge monetary cost, to prevent radioactivity leaks due to degradation

On page 39 of a 2009 report comparing costs of permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, versus parking lot dumps, versus very long term (up to 500 years) of on-site storage at nuclear power plants, GAO reported: “…our models generated cost ranges from $20 billion to $97 billion for the on-site storage of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste for 100 years followed by geologic disposal. For only on-site storage for 100 years without disposal, costs would range from $10 billion to $26 billion for 70,000 metric tons of waste and from $13 billion to $34 billion for 153,000 metric tons of waste. On-site storage costs would increase significantly if the waste were stored for longer periods—storing 153,000 metric tons on site for 500 years would cost from $34 billion to $225 billion—because it would have to be repackaged every 100 years for safety.” And given that shut down nuclear power plants will have dismantled their “wet storage” indoor pools, a new “repackaging” facility will need to be built to carry out such transfer safely, behind thick radiation shielding. How much will that cost? At page 55, GAO assumed that “Construction of a transfer facility for repackaging” will cost a whopping “$300 million plus or minus 50 percent (for either a wet or a dry transfer facility),” per nuclear power plant site! So much for nuclear power being “too cheap to meter” — how about “too expensive to matter”?! Of course, once the high-level radioactive wastes exist, they have to be isolated from the environment, no matter the monetary cost — to allow them to leak would cause incalcuable, unacceptable damage to health and environment, “downwind and downstream” (both physically, and temporally). Incredibly, Figure 12 on page 73 of the report those the following:

“Figure 12 shows the present value of the total cost ranges of storing the nuclear waste on site over 2,000 years. The shaded areas indicate the probability that the values fall within the indicated ranges and are the result of combinations of uncertainties from a large number of input data. Specifically, we estimate that these costs could range from $34 billion to $225 billion over 500 years, from $41 billion to $548 billion over 1,000 years, and from $41 billion to $954 billion over 2,000 years, indicating and substantial level of uncertainty in making long-term cost projections.”

The proliferation of nuclear energy means there is a lot of leftover uranium-238, so called depleted uranium.