來自全美各地的16名社會科學家聯名指出，對於核廢料，歐巴馬政府付出太多的努力在處理技術的問題上面，以至於無法回應公眾對於儲存與處置工作的擔憂。
研究人員在最新一期的科學期刊中表示，歐巴馬政府的「美國核能未來藍絲帶委員會」(Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future)並沒有對社會與政治可能的解決方案付出足夠的心力。
科學家們寫道，「雖然科學與技術分析是必要的，但不該、甚至不可用學術之名凌駕在與公眾有關的實質及程序性問題之上。」
「與人溝通有關放射性廢料的風險是十分困難的，」弗里德曼(Friedman)說，「放射性看不到也摸不著，不能確定它造成的影響，而不同的暴露程度帶來的風險也很難解釋。這些都在灌輸人們恐懼感，也不利於公眾接受核廢料處理方案的建議。」
代表全美各州，超過170個中央與基層的環保團體，簽署了一份名為《核廢料安全處理原則聲明(Statement of Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactors)》，這份聲明敦促包括藍帶委員會等決策者，強化全美核電廠場內高強度核廢料的儲存安全。
弗里德曼教授是理海大學(Lehigh University)科學與環境寫作課程新聞與通信主任，也是這篇發表在科學上的文章的16名共同作者之一。她說由科技專家與前政治人物所組成的18人藍絲帶委員會，「似乎看到並且試著回應社會學家過去20年來，對於公眾對核廢料風險的看法與認知。」
「許多社會學研究已經指出，核廢料問題如何影響社區，而政策又如何解決。我們不應該浪費這些知識，而應該好好利用它們來找到解決方案。」弗里德曼說。
科學期刊上這篇論文發表的當下核能正在抬頭，全世界有超過50座反應爐正在興建，還有超過100座反應爐計畫在未來10年內興建。
但放射性廢料儲存的問題並沒有得到解決。今天，全美有大約6萬噸的高放射性核廢料沒有理想的處理方案。
「解決相關的社會問題並不保證能成功，但是忽略問題只會增加重蹈覆轍的機會，如同亞卡山的問題一樣(譯者按：亞卡山是美國政府選定的高放射性核廢料儲存場，但啟用後引發的社會、衛生、健康與環境爭議不斷)。」
亞卡山位於內華達州，拉斯維加斯西北方90英里處，是國會於1982年指定，全美唯一的地面核廢料儲存場。但歐巴馬總統以撤回相關的經費，並要求撤銷申請許可。
今年7月22日，參議院撥款委員會否決了一項修正案，停止亞卡山計畫。
「我很高興撥款委員會認定亞卡山計畫已經終止，也拒絕其死灰復燃的機會，」參議院多數黨領袖里德(Harry Reid)說。「現在是時候停止這個既危險又浪費納稅人金錢的計畫了，讓我們國家最聰明的人繼續工作，找到處理核廢料真正的解決方案。」
該委員會由15名成員在具有核能問題專業知識與經驗的專家，包括科學家、業界代表以及政界德高望重的人士。委員會的成員們在解決難題、周全的方式以及在各方利益間建立共識方面很有經驗。
藍絲帶委員會成立於2010年1月，委員會將在2011年6月製作一份臨時報告，2012年1月做出結論報告。
到目前為止，委員會已舉行了3次全面的公聽會，以接受專家們的證詞。
最近的公聽會在7月舉辦，地點位於華盛頓州的里奇蘭(Richland)附近的漢福德核廢料儲存場，全美2/3的高放射性核廢料，高達5300萬加侖(20萬4千立方公尺)的核廢料就儲存在177個位於地底下的核廢料儲存桶內。
3個小組委員會分別處理核廢料處置、核燃料循環技術以及運輸儲存問題等，也舉行了公聽會。
在最近一次舉辦的公聽會中，運輸儲存小組委員會在聽完相關證詞之後，認為使用過的核廢料以濕式儲存、是否集中存放或是遠離反應爐儲存等方式的風險相比，乾式儲存是現場長期存放的可行方式。
全球每年產生使用過的核廢料，可以填滿一個深1.5米，面積約等於一個足球場的範圍，重量大約是1.05萬公噸。
The Obama administration's effort to fix the nation's stalled nuclear waste program is focusing so much on technological issues that it fails to address the public mistrust hampering storage and disposal efforts, say 16 social science researchers from across the country.
Writing in the latest issue of the journal "Science," the researchers say that President Barack Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future is not paying enough attention to the social and political acceptability of possible solutions.
"While scientific and technical analyses are essential, they will not and arguably should not carry the day unless they address, substantively and procedurally, the issues that concern the public," the scientists write.
"Communicating with people about risks from radioactive waste is extremely difficult," Friedman said. "You can't see or smell radiation, you don't know what it will do to you, and dangers from various exposure levels are hard to explain. All of this instills fear in people and works against public acceptability of proposed solutions for disposing of nuclear waste."
More than 170 national and grassroots environmental organizations, representing every state in the country, have signed onto a "Statement of Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactors." It urges decision makers, including the Blue Ribbon Commission, to require hardened on-site storage for high-level radioactive waste stored at nuclear power plants across the United States.
Composed of science and technology experts and several former politicians, the 18 member Blue Ribbon Commission "appears to be overlooking what social scientists have learned over 20 years about public perception of, and response to, the risks of nuclear wastes," says Sharon Friedman professor of journalism and communication and director of the Science and Environmental Writing Program at Lehigh University, and one of the 16 co-authors of the "Science" paper.
"A number of social science studies have already addressed how nuclear waste issues can impact communities and shape policy around these issues. This knowledge should not be wasted but used instead to help find solutions," Friedman said.
The "Science" paper comes while a "nuclear renaissance" has more than 50 reactors under construction in the world and more than 100 others planned over the next decade.
But the problem of radioactive waste storage has not been solved. Today, some 60,000 tons of high-level waste has accumulated in the United States without a successful waste-disposal program.
"Addressing the relevant social issues does not guarantee success," the scientists write, "but ignoring them increases the chances of repeating past failures, like Yucca Mountain."
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada was designated as the nation's sole geologic nuclear waste repository by Congress in 1982, but President Obama withdrew its funding and has asked that its licensing application be withdrawn.
On July 22, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted against an amendment to restore funding for the Yucca Mountain Project.
"I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee recognizes that Yucca Mountain is dead and rejected an effort to bring it back to life," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "It's time to move past this dangerous, taxpayer-money wasting project and let some of our nation's best minds continue their work to find real solutions for dealing with nuclear waste."
The Commission is made up of 15 members who have a range of expertise and experience in nuclear issues, including scientists, industry representatives, and respected former elected officials. The Commission's co-chairs have a record of tackling tough challenges in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner and building consensus among an array of interests.
Formed in January 2010, the commission will produce an interim report by June 2011 and a final report by January 2012.
To date, the commission has held three full-scale public hearings to receive expert testimony.
The most recent public hearing was held in July at the Department of Energy's Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington where two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume - 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 cubic meters) - is stored in 177 underground radioactive waste tanks.
Three subcommittees dealing with waste disposal, reactor fuel cycle technology, and transportation and storage are also holding public hearings.
During the most recent hearing, held Thursday, the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee considered testimony regarding the risks of extended dry storage of spent fuel as compared to the risks of storage in pools of water and whether centralized, away-from reactor storage is a feasible alternative to long-term on-site storage.
Globally, each year, nuclear power reactors create enough spent fuel to fill a football field to a depth of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet), with a weight of about 10,500 tons.
全文及圖片詳見：ENS報導
作者
In my healing journey and learning to attain the breath awareness, I become aware of the reality that all the creatures of the world are breathing the same breath. Take action, here and now. From my physical being to the every corner of this out of balance's planet.
