Column: Science can design a foolproof cask; question is where to put it

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Winston Churchill

"Will the 'real' Mr. Thomas step forward?" That challenge was issued by a Mr. Lou deBottari in his Aug. 27 letter to our editor concerning my past columns. How can I refuse?

Since I'm on record as saying computer programs aren't reliable enough to accurately forecast the structural integrity of aircraft in terms of absolute maximum life, Mr. deBottari twists that around and claims that in past columns I've blessed the Department of Energy's computer simulations as being infallible on the structural and environmental integrity of containers to be used for high level nuclear waste.

There's quite a difference between a delicate aircraft structure which is designed to be as light as possible while carrying as heavy a load as possible as fast as possible, and the deterioration over 100,000 years of super high strength, heavy, over-designed metals encasing nuclear waste, which are stored in underground tunnels and can be inspected, and if necessary refurbished with overlays. Yes, one hell of a difference ... like apples and oranges!

Yes, I do trust the scientific community to solve our nuclear waste problems. Who else do we have, anti-nuke knee tremblers who at best have a smattering of junk science behind their fanatical obsession with keeping a nuclear waste repository out of Nevada?

Now, let's look at the facts. In my last column on Yucca Mountain, I made it absolutely clear that I am opposed to nuke waste being stored here in Nevada or in any other state. I am the one who is convinced that all nuclear waste which cannot be reprocessed should be encased in the best containers science can create, and then dumped in the Pacific Ocean at the 35,000 foot depth level.

Surrounded by millions of cubic miles of sea water and with controlled leakage, there is no possibility whatsoever of contamination with a dilution factor of that magnitude. Check Bikini Atoll and you'll see no lingering radiation effects from the dirtiest, biggest H-bomb nuke explosion in history. And that was only 54 years ago!

I also made it clear that we should adopt a breeder reactor, or another similar program, and reprocess our nuke waste for reuse. It's being done in France and has been for years. I don't see anti-nuke forces in France. France and England need nuclear power and their people know it.

I further stated that I believe the scientific community, if left alone by politicians and bureaucrats, would also conclude that nuke waste should be buried at sea. But our independent scientists including geologists, environmentalists, physicists and engineers have never been called upon to come up with their own storage solution by consensus. Scientists employed by DOE and the nuke industry all conform to political agendas. Don't confuse them with the scientific community. As of now we have little genuine science on either side of the nuke storage issue.

Getting back to computer simulations. In aircraft design, we didn't always have them. There were no digital computers available for use in designing the Douglas DC-3s, 4s, 6s or 7s. Nor were there computers available in the design of Lockheed's Constellation, nor with Boeing's Stratocruisers.

Back in those days you wouldn't have really wanted to know what we did, but now that it's history, I'll tell you. We static tested, exercise tested and pressure tested all aircraft structures on failure. Then we'd gusset (brace) the failure points. That ended up being the final structure design. With a few exceptions, it worked quite well.

In my Concorde columns, I didn't intend giving you folks the idea the computer lift simulation programs weren't valuable because they are indispensable. It would be impossible to get today's aircraft to the production stage without computer simulations. It's just that no program can take into account all of the variables affecting all flights, which means that empirical data, when available, must be integrated with simulations to continually upgrade computer forecasts.

Computer simulations of environmental effects on containers for long term storage of high level nuclear waste are a piece of cake in comparison to aircraft structures. Yes, I've stated that I think science can design a fool- and accident-proof container for high level nuclear waste if given the unencumbered chance to do so. Give our scientific community a specific objective as we did at Los Alamos, without political interference, and it will come through for us. But we Nevadans might not like the answers, and therein lies the rub.

Bob Thomas is a Carson City businessman, local curmudgeon and former member of the Carson City School Board and Nevada State Assembly.