% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

УСУ Message Board

  • lewis_whokeyser lewis_whokeyser Apr 30, 2013 5:47 AM Flag

    OT: EPA Softens Stance On Nuclear Contamination

    IMAGINE THAT the Boston bombers didn’t pack nails into pressure cookers but instead packed highly radioactive material. How would the government be responding?

    Part of the answer might lie in a document the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued this month, suggesting guidelines on how state and local officials should deal with potentially toxic nuclear contamination from disasters such as dirty bombs, power plant failures and atomic bomb detonations.

    Activists object that the guidelines would expose Americans to high doses of radiation instead of ensuring high levels of protection. The unsubtle subtext is that the continuing use of nuclear power is a direct danger against which the government is failing to protect people.

    Actually, nuclear power has an exceptional safety record, particularly compared with the illnesses and deaths for which air pollution from coal burning is responsible. It also poses unique risks for which the government should prepare responsibly. That’s just what the EPA is doing.

    The critics say that the EPA is attempting to defy long-established legal standards for radioactive contamination. The document, they say, would allow Americans to drink water contaminated thousands of times past the legal limit. It would allow residents to remain in a disaster zone even when there’s lots of dangerous material in the air. And, they claim, the EPA’s suggestions would allow resettlement of areas that are unfit under the rules that govern toxic Superfund sites.

    The EPA responds that the government’s legal safety standards haven’t changed. The new guidelines aren’t enforceable rules — they are suggestions to help local officials make tough decisions.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Isn't the historic reasoning behind using uranium rather than thorium precisely driven by the desire of the D.O.E. and its Russian counterpart to generate bomb related materials through the enrichment process? Isn't this precisely the reason that national security interests makes the gov't relationship in support of USEC appropriate and predictable?
      There are some very good reasons why nobody lives in the bikini beach atoll anymore but it truly has nothing to do with USU improving its efficiency in producing SWU needed by large utilities who have hundreds of billions already invested in needed power supplying plants. For me USU is one of the best speculative opportunities in the universe of stocks.
      1 likely buyout (With ACP and large loss carry forward B&W part of buying interest)
      2 improving gross margin with ACP (Paducah to leave USEC financials soo)
      3 entrenched customer base (Japan coming back)
      4 long term supply fo product assured (Tenex - 10 years)
      5 small overhead when ACP development completed and Paducah gone
      6 Top USEC execs have held their shares