“The city just put out a welcome sign” to transporters of nuclear waste, said Asheville City Council member Robin Cape last month. The come-on-in approach is likely to see more scrutiny and debate soon — both locally and nationally.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the group Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads asked Asheville City Council to pass an ordinance banning the transport of high-level nuclear waste within the city limits.

Council members took no action, nor did most seem persuaded by the group’s cause. City Attorney Bob Oast was willing to draw up a resolution — rather than an ordinance — communicating the city’s concerns and request to federal authorities to mitigate the dangers posed by the transport of such hazardous materials.

CSNC’s website has the proposed ordinance the group presented to City Council.

Asheville Citizen-Times letter-writer Steve Mickey and commenters are more satisfied with the safety of nuclear industry and transport of its products/byproducts.

While Oast is doubtful that cities can prohibit federally regulated activities like nuclear transport, the city of Oakland, Calif., is testing the premise in a federal lawsuit as reported in a [CORRECTION: Dec 22, 1989] <strike>Dec. 14, 2008</strike> article in The New York Times. Here’s what the NYT reported <strike>reports</strike>:

In a Federal lawsuit filed in San Francisco in September, the Government seeks to overturn a November 1988 ordinance forcing the Government to stop operating naval installations and an Energy Department office, which oversees weapons research and industrial contractors in 34 states.

But the significance of the suit reaches far beyond Oakland. In recent years, a dozen other cities have taken actions to challenge Federal policies on national and international issues, like divesting themselves of pension investments linked to South Africa and ending contracts for products and services with weapons makers.

More than 160 cities and counties in 26 states, including New York City, have passed largely symbolic measures declaring themselves nuclear-free zones. ...

The Oakland ordinance, which drew 57 percent of the vote in a referendum, prohibits the manufacture of nuclear weapons or storage of radioactive materials in the city, and regulates transportation of such weapons and materials through it. It also bars the city from contracting with any business in nuclear weapons work, or investing in such a business, and it prohibits nuclear reactors in the city.

The transportation regulations took on special relevance in the Oct. 17 earthquake, when a portion of the main truck route for transporting radioactive materials through the city - the Nimitz Freeway - collapsed. ‘‘It is chilling to think what would have happened if a vehicle carrying nuclear materials had been traveling along the Nimitz when the quake hit,’’ said Wilson Riles Jr., a City Councilman.

In its complaint, the Justice Department argues that the Oakland ordinance disrupts Federal law and policy on nuclear weapons, energy and transportation. ...

The lawsuit argues that the Constitution gives exclusive authority to the Federal Government over national defense matters and interstate commerce. It says the law violates the Atomic Energy Act, which provides for Federal control over the military and civilian use of atomic energy, research and development, and violates the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to promulgate regulations on the movement of radioactive material.

I haven’t been able to find a list of the 160 cities that have passed ordinances.

While both sides of the argument have plenty to say, a couple issues often get sidestepped:

1) Is nuclear energy in the long-term future of humanity? (What is likely to be the response to what seems ultimately inevitable: a large inhabited area being cordoned off for at least decades — more than a lifetime — after an accident or act of war? Will science ever develop a way to neutralize or shield nuclear radiation?)

2) As long as the tribe with the baddest weapons keeps attacking or bullying the others, the six or so billion people of the world are at the mercy of “tribal” governments made up bully-politicians and industrialists; how might the six billion organize themselves to move cooperatively, yet forcefully, toward disarmament?

As someone who was nuked at the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident in March 1979. Speaking from my experience, the cover up as to the harm will be buried as it has been for years.

We forget to consider the effects that Earth changes have on our planet. When will we all realize that we have more to fear about the affects of Mother Nature.

It is said by Ancient people that we are coming to the 5th World.
Solar cycle 24 is predicted to be greater than 23 with the apex in 2011-2012

We as a Society either get it or die a slow death.

I read comic books. You are too far out for even me.

Seriously, there is no way in hell we can risk polluting a whole city with spilled nuclear waste.  Question is, can the transporters of this stuff absolutely guarantee it’s safe and what would happen if a truck load of this stuff was bombed, would the containers hold up under high explosives?  I watched a chilling move the other day called “Traitor”.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988047/  My point is this, we better broaden our thinking about how and where another attack may come.  It may not be some high profile target but something that would really spread terror among us.

In fact, the attack on 9/11 could have been stopped with the right people running our security apparatus like a women who had a Phd in cold war politics and failed to recognize the threat in time.  You just do not stick an educated person in the job of national security adviser. When dealing with people who think like criminals, you need someone who understands the criminal mind and has some imagination, not just book learning. I truly hope Obama’s choice is more qualified than Ms Rice was.

glolady - 14 December 2008 09:44 PM

As someone who was nuked at the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident in March 1979. Speaking from my experience, the cover up as to the harm will be buried as it has been for years.

We forget to consider the effects that Earth changes have on our planet. When will we all realize that we have more to fear about the affects of Mother Nature.

It is said by Ancient people that we are coming to the 5th World.
Solar cycle 24 is predicted to be greater than 23 with the apex in 2011-2012

We as a Society either get it or die a slow death.

With all due respect, I’m not sure what solar cycles have to do with nuclear materials coming through town.

I think the point is that these “solar cycles” will potential irradiate the planet quite a bit. so it is kinda on topic.

The (PFKaP) - 16 December 2008 01:42 PM

I think the point is that these “solar cycles” will potential irradiate the planet quite a bit. so it is kinda on topic.

The sun is a giant nuclear inferno that is slowly boiling our atmosphere away. We should get to the root of the problem and do away with the sun.

Earth changes that become top stories in the news are predicted to increase. Contrary to the Global warming myth, the Earth has changed forms many times.

What about the Nuclear reactors during an Earth quake?

The focus should be on Natural renewable energy for everyone and not for the profit of a few.

Jason Bugg - 15 December 2008 12:50 AM

I read comic books. You are too far out for even me.

It has been said, Fact is stranger than fiction!

glolady - 16 December 2008 02:06 PM

What about the Nuclear reactors during an Earth quake?

Depends on the reactor. There are micro-nuclear reactors in the works that are completely sealed and only about the size of a truck trailer. They’d probably be very safe during almost any natural disaster. As a rule, nuclear plants are built in geologically stable areas, however.

It’s not like there’s just one kind of reactor, either. There are a variety of types and sizes for a variety of situations and needs. For instance, we use nuclear power in submarines and aircraft carriers all the time, and there are comparatively few problems with them. That wouldn’t work for a city, obviously, but some collection of smaller, relatively safe reactors could be.

Nuclear power needn’t be a bogeyman. It’s just one of a variety of options. Again, the sun is a large nuclear reactor (fusion-powered, of course), so in a sense our entire existence is nuclear-fueled. To me, the real question is how best to use nuclear power when there are better, safer and cleaner options that address the need.

glolady - 16 December 2008 02:06 PM

The focus should be on Natural renewable energy for everyone and not for the profit of a few.

No doubt. Nuclear fusion could be a part of that, if we could ever get it to work on a reasonable scale. So could wind, solar, wave and hydroelectric.

Problem is, we have this energy teat.  And too many people on the planet sucking on it.  There’s no way to just switch to clean sunlight/wind/water and have Mother Nature kiss our stinkless little butts.  I dislike and distrust nuclear, but we as a nation have been using it and will continue, and its not some other country’s waste we’re talking about.  Until we figure out a way to generate energy from its byproducts, we need to transport it to safe storage.  Yes, it would be wonderful too if we could do so without going through urban areas, but look again at the east coast of the US.

The whole debate about nuclear seems to center around the idea that we will never change the way we consume power.

I find that silly, personally. We dont need a trillion billion lights left on 24 hours a day, and we dont need an energy plan that “encourages consumption”, as you fearless leader has proposed.

How abut an energy plan that is regionally based, and supplies reasonable amounts of power for “necessary” services? 

Personally, I dont see how we could possibly sustain our current consumption levels into the future, with nuclear, magickal crystals, solar, or whatever. Its all a myth of “progress”, even though we are actively coming apart at the seams already.

I think there have been some good efforts towards reducing consumption. Compact-florescent bulbs are a good start, as is the transition to not CRT computer monitors. Shopping online and downloading music rather than buying a CD are also good options for helping reduce energy costs, as there’s less shipping involved and less need for a retail space to sell them from. Allowing people who can work from home to telecommute is another awesome option. Each of these things has a relatively small impact, but it does add up.

Granted, this does kind of fly in the face of “think globally, act locally,” but as a general trend I’m encouraged by it. All in all, I’m quite hopeful that the 21st century will see all kinds of improvements in large and small scale energy use reductions.

Steve,

I’m afraid all the “solutions” you are mentioning are band-aids on an open wound. Just my opinion, but there it is.

The pollution created in the process of making the little techno-gadgets we all love and use everyday are far more destructive than the theoretical payoff of a slightly lower usage of energy or whatever from a “different” computer screen, or lightbulb. I am of the opinion that we are in the last days of cheap, over-abundant energy, and we have definitely passed the threshold where we, as a culture, could have made any kind of smooth transition to a more sustainable large scale power supply like solar or wind.

As long as power production is centralized and commodified to encourage consumption, we will be causing problems we can not possibly deal with. Not to mention the socio-economic impacts of all these industries on the areas that mine natural resources from West Virginia to West Africa.

Jason’s ignorance does not insult me. I have grown a thick skin. I have accepted who and what I am… that is all that matters. If others have a hard time understanding that people are different than them… well… that is not my problem!

I would rather be happy knowing, then trying to prove I am right.

glolady - 16 December 2008 02:06 PM

What about the Nuclear reactors during an Earth quake?

True, but what about during a Martian attack as well?

Seriously, when you start throwing in random cataclysmic events as reasons not to pursue nucular energy, you’re basically just fear-mongering.