Nuclear Waste Disposal

Introduction

Nuclear energy became a reality for America back in the 1940’s when scientists involved with the Manhattan Project discovered how to split the atom. Of course, the Manhattan Project was focused on using this nuclear energy for the development of weapons, specifically the atomic bomb. Since that time period, the prime focus of nuclear energy has been discovering how to harness it to use it as an alternative to other energy sources. Congress perpetuated this objective in 1954 when they passed the Atomic Energy Act. This act provided for the establishment and operation of the first nuclear power plants (Vandenbosch and Vandenbosch 36). However, the use of nuclear energy has been a controversial issue for United States citizens. Many people have labeled this type of energy as unsafe and are inclined to do away with it altogether (Moore). 

The reality is that America cannot afford to cut ties with nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power accounts for 20% of the energy used in the United States (Moore). Considering the fact that President Obama has recently pledged over eight billion dollars to the cause of building new nuclear power plants, this type of energy is apparently about to become more heavily relied upon by our country (Muskal and Tankersley). Given America’s current rate of energy consumption, doing away with nuclear power does not appear to be a reasonable solution. So why are there those who are opposed to this form of energy? One of the main reasons that nuclear energy remains a controversial issue is that the use of nuclear energy produces waste that poses threats to human health. This problem is perpetuated by the fact that America currently does not have a way to dispose of the waste. However, I maintain that nuclear energy is a clean source of energy that has come a long way in becoming a realistic and useful energy source. Many are of the impression that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be dealt with because they believe that there are many risks connected with it. Others believe that America is incapable of coming up with a method for nuclear waste disposal. Nevertheless, I believe that a workable disposal facility is attainable. During the past several decades, America has gained a greater scientific understanding of nuclear energy. This knowledge coupled with increased experience with nuclear energy puts a waste disposal solution within in our grasp.

Why a Disposal Facility is Needed

Temporary Storage Pool

       The lack of a disposal method for nuclear waste is a troubling problem because the waste is highly radioactive. As most people know, human exposure to radioactive materials can have serious consequences. At the present time, all of America’s nuclear waste is being stored in nuclear power plants across the country. At each plant, the waste is being stored temporarily because the plants do not have the resources or space to permanently dispose of it (Kingsley and Rogers). The practice has been to use fuel rods that contain enriched uranium for nuclear power until all the useful energy has been gleaned from each fuel rod (Kingsley and Rogers). When a fuel rod no longer produces energy, it is called a spent fuel rod. Spent fuel rods are the radioactive nuclear waste that is in need of being disposed. The temporary storage plan calls for these spent fuel rods to be thrown in pools of water, located at the plant, in order to cool off (Kingsley and Rogers). This method is fine for temporary storage. The problem is that this is the only thing that has been done with the nuclear waste since the establishment of the power plants in 1954 (Kingsley and Rogers). As you can imagine, these pools are getting a little full. Continuing to store nuclear waste in this manner is hazardous to civilization. So what do we do? Should we give up and leave nuclear energy behind as many people might wish? To do so would be to walk away from what is arguably the most practical source of energy that we have available to us. So, what is the answer? We come up with a disposal method for the nuclear waste. America is said to be the most powerful country; we have the smarts and we have the technology to come up with a solution for nuclear waste.
       Although I have submitted that a nuclear waste disposal facility is attainable, many would argue that it is simply out of our reach. Many Americans are skeptical of our ability to handle nuclear waste because of America’s track record for trying to solve this problem. One news report characterized the storage of nuclear waste as, “An impossible problem” (Wirick). This type of criticism is common for the waste storage issue. It comes from the fact that over the past several years, congress has struggled to solve the nuclear waste problem, but has so far been unsuccessful in their efforts. Congress set on its journey to establish a working facility for nuclear waste disposal in 1982. It is now 2011, nuclear waste is continuing to pile up, and we still do not have a way to get rid of this dangerous and radioactive waste. Many of the setbacks that have occurred with this process are due to opposition and disagreement on behalf of the federal government, as well as the state governments. America needs to come together. Allowing the nuclear waste to continue to pile up in temporary storage leaves us vulnerable to an attack or accident that would release the radioactive materials (Kingsley and Rogers). Our ignorance of the problem thus far has threatened our national security. We cannot afford to sit around and fight about nuclear waste storage any longer. A plan for waste disposal must be implemented soon.



Possible Solutions

The clarification should be made that nuclear waste cannot be “disposed” of. No one can make it disappear. The idea of disposal in this case only means that we put it somewhere that no one really has to worry about it causing harm to any form of life. For this reason, the way to dispose of nuclear waste is simply to store it somewhere safe. That being said, there are many different opinions on how America should go about storing the nuclear waste. Some of the more feasible and recommendable solutions are the proposed ideas of seabed storage, ice sheet storage, and geologic storage.  Among these options, geologic storage is the best and most practical solution.

The plan of seabed storage is as simple as it sounds. The waste would merely be placed in canisters which would then be dropped into the ocean. The main reason that makes this option advantageous is that if the waste somehow escaped the canister, the water would substantially dilute the radioactivity of the waste (Vandenbosch and Vandenbosch 13). Another feature that is attractive about this strategy is that the waste would be in a location uninhabited by humans. However, at the present time, international law prohibits the dumping of such materials into the ocean.  Since changing international law is not something that happens every day, this option is quite unlikely to ever become implemented. Also, depending on the PH level of the water, it could potentially erode the canisters and expose the waste (Kingsley and Rogers). Although the radiation would be significantly diluted by the water, there is no telling what the effects would be on ocean life. Affecting ocean life would also eventually affect human life. Although people do not live in the ocean, they still have a great deal of interaction with it. For example, many humans come into contact with the ocean every day through fishing, boating, and swimming. Seabed storage is an option that clearly poses a threat to humans. The idea of a nuclear waste disposal facility is to reduce the dangers associated with nuclear energy. This is why seabed storage is not a great option for the waste disposal; it doesn’t accomplish the main objective of reducing the danger. The risk is too great to place nuclear waste in the ocean without being sure about whether or not the radioactive materials would remain contained.

Ice sheet storage is safer than seabed storage because there is less of a chance of humans coming into contact with the waste. With this option, the waste would be placed in a borehole in an ice sheet. Heat from the radioactive substances would cause the ice to melt small amounts making it so the waste would slide down and become farther and farther embedded into the ice sheet (Kingsley and Rogers). This storage method would allow the radiation to be cooled down, making it less potent. The radiation would also be located far away from human civilization as ice sheets that would be considered for this plan are only found in remote locations, such as Antarctica. Unfortunately, the ice sheets have become increasingly unstable in recent years due to hotter than average temperatures (Kingsley and Rogers). Because of this, if the waste were stored in ice sheets, there is a growing possibility that the ice sheets could melt and break away. This would cause the radioactive material to become exposed. As with the method of seabed storage, there is an element of risk associated with ice sheet storage. In both situations, the biggest risk is that it cannot be guaranteed that the waste will stay where it is supposed to stay. The great amount of uncertainty and guesswork with these options is not acceptable. The waste needs to be stored in a more controlled environment to eliminate the risk.

Tunnel at the Failed Geologic Storage Site of Yucca Mountain

Geologic storage calls for an underground facility to be built. The nuclear waste would then be placed in containers and stored underground. The storage site would not be sealed, allowing the waste to be monitored, and extracted if need be (Kingsley and Rogers). Unlike the methods of seabed and ice sheet storage, geologic storage does not involve a lot of uncertainty. Because the site would be a monitored site, it would be a secure and controlled situation. In the science community, it is a widespread belief that geologic storage is the safest disposal plan for the waste (Vandenbosch and Vandenbosch 7). This type of storage facility is what America needs to accomplish. Geologic storage of nuclear waste will be the safest and most practical method.

Opposition to Geologic Storage

So if most of the scientists and other experts are of the opinion that an underground facility for the storage of nuclear waste is the best option, why don’t we have such a facility? The truth is that we have tried, and failed, to develop one. For several decades, there have been struggles to build a geologic storage facility. The problem with this method has been finding a location. The facility would have to be built somewhere in the United States, and no one wants nuclear waste as a neighbor. Opposition has been met in every state that has been chosen to house the waste facility. This problem is best summarized by the following statement:

The scientific problem of finding a geologically suitable site has been much easier than the political problem of finding a state willing to take the waste.      
(Kingsley and Rogers)

This account accurately describes the sentiment that the U.S. citizens have had regarding housing a nuclear waste facility in their state. I recently conducted a survey that revealed that 92% of people were strongly opposed to having a nuclear waste facility that would be located over 200 miles away from them. Even the remaining 8% were not in favor of it, but rather, they remained unsure (Ivey). Public opposition has been like this everywhere, and this is where the main fight with politics has been. Any state that has been suggested for the waste disposal has used their government representatives to get them off the hook. Regardless of the objections, there is a general consensus in congress that America is in need of a nuclear waste storage facility. Because of this, congress has been trying to put a plan in motion for several years.

 Progress Made in Establishing a Geologic Storage Facility

(…and why we still don’t have one)

In 1982, congress established the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Under the provisions of this act, the Department of Energy was charged with finding two sites that would be suitable for a geologic nuclear waste facility. One site would be east of the Mississippi River while the other would be located west of the river. The Department of Energy was responsible to recommend three sites for the first facility by 1985 and an additional five sites for the second facility by 1989. The Department of Energy set to work to meet their deadline of 1998, when the first storage location would begin receiving loads of nuclear waste. Unfortunately, it was also at this time that everything started to go wrong with the process of site selection.

Following the establishment of the NWPA, the Department of Energy recommended three potential sites for the nuclear waste facility, the chosen sites were: Yucca Mountain in Nevada, Deaf Smith County in Texas, and the Hanford site in Washington (Vandenbosch and Vandenbosch 73). Soon thereafter, this list was narrowed down to Yucca Mountain. There is quite a bit of controversy over why Yucca Mountain became the final recommended site. However, I submit that it was because Nevada had less government representation than Texas or Washington. Government representatives from both Washington and Texas were able to get their state out of the selection while Nevada representatives didn’t have enough say in the matter. Opposition to my claim is that Yucca Mountain was chosen based purely on scientific reasoning. To that argument I respond that had the decision been based on scientific reasoning, it is extremely unlikely that Yucca Mountain would have ever been considered in the first place.

The Problem with Yucca Mountain

The problem with Yucca Mountain is that it is located in an area that is tectonically active (Macfarlane 11). In other words, the Yucca Mountain region has experienced volcanic eruptions, as well as earthquakes. Although the volcanic eruptions happened many years ago, earthquakes have occurred at the Yucca Mountain site much more recently. In 1992 there was an earthquake with the magnitude of 5.6 followed by an earthquake with the magnitude of 4.4, both occurred at Yucca Mountain (Macfarlane 12). If a nuclear waste storage facility was located in this area and there was an earthquake, it is probable that the radioactive materials would be released into the atmosphere as well as into the ground water (Macfarlane 12). This kind of radiation release would affect many people. Seeing as it is that we have a whole country to choose a nuclear waste site from, it would seem that if we knew a site was tectonically active, we would avoid it. The Department of Energy’s choice of Yucca Mountain seems to have not been based on scientific evidence, or even logic. Although the Department of energy claims to have made their decision based solely on scientific factors, I believe that the more likely cause was political influence.

The Approval and Termination of Yucca Mountain

In spite of the fact that Yucca Mountain was clearly unqualified to house the nation’s nuclear waste, President Bush approved the site in 2002 and the facility began to be built. (The 1998 deadline was thrown off schedule due to setbacks) Nevada’s opposition to the matter remained quite strong through the years. However, their chances of reversing the government’s decision were viewed as slim at best. Then something happened, a man named Barack Obama ran for president. During his campaign, he promised to do away with the Yucca Mountain nuclear project if he were to be elected. Following his election, Obama made good on his promise as he cut the funding to the building of a nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain earlier this year (Northey).

Obama’s decision was both good and bad. At least now we don’t have to worry about having a nuclear waste facility releasing radiation due to an earthquake. Unfortunately, his decision leaves us right back where we started. Also, it seems contradictory that Obama would put an end to a potential storage facility for nuclear waste at the same time that he announced plans for the building of new nuclear power plants. All that the politicians seem to do is attempt to undo the work of other politicians. Obama undid Bush’s decision regarding Yucca Mountain, and congress is currently trying to undo Obama’s decision as they are questioning the constitutionality of his action (Northey). Even stranger is that Obama appears to be attempting to undo his own actions by seeming to endorse nuclear power at the same time that he makes it harder for nuclear power to be a viable option. All of the politicians need to realize that the situation at hand calls for action and they somehow need to get on the same page.

Why any of this Matters

So far I have explained the problem of nuclear waste and outlined possible solutions to the problem. So what? Who cares about nuclear energy, why should we strive to keep it as an energy option?  Well, it matters because nuclear energy is the form of energy that America has increasingly come to rely upon. Nuclear energy is a cleaner source of energy than the fossil fuels that America is also currently reliant upon (“Benefits”). Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Moore). Greenhouse gases are gases, such as carbon dioxide, that trap heat in the atmosphere. Some argue that this causes temperature changes on the earth that can possibly harm human life. Switching over to nuclear energy and leaving fossil fuels behind would stop the release of poisonous gases into our atmosphere. Another benefit of nuclear energy is that its source is uranium. Uranium is found in an abundant supply in the earth’s crust (“Benefits”). Because of this, an almost limitless supply of nuclear energy is available. Given that America has a relatively easy access to this abundant supply of uranium, many of our current energy problems could be eliminated by increased nuclear energy reliance. America would be able to become self-sustaining, as far as energy goes, and this would lead to a decreased dependence on the Middle East.

Even though nuclear energy offers several benefits, many people will say that it is not worth pursuing because it is too dangerous. Part of the reason for this is that there are many myths circling around about this type of energy. One such myth is that nuclear energy incidents cause many deaths. Yes, there have been tragedies related with nuclear energy that have claimed lives. However, these tragic accidents are few and far in between. The reality is that coal mining, which is necessary in order to sustain our current use of fossil fuels for energy, kills more people than nuclear energy does. An average of 5,000 people die each year in coal mining accidents while only a handful of people have been killed from nuclear energy accidents (Moore). Nuclear power plants are built with the most up-to-date safety technology and they are required to follow all of the regulations to the letter (Moore). Unfortunately, there are not a lot of ways to make coal mining a safer profession. Statistically, nuclear power plant workers are safer than coal miners. It is easy for everyone to dramatize the nuclear power accidents because they are rare. Because of this, the 5,000 lives that are lost to coal mining each year do not weigh heavily on the minds of American citizens. If everyone were to take a step back and see the truth of the matter, they would realize that many of the rumors about nuclear energy are simply not correct.

It may seem that I conveniently forgot that while nuclear incidents that immediately claim lives are rare, effects of nuclear waste radiation also claim lives. Exposure to this type of radiation is infamous for causing life threatening cancers of the thyroid, lungs, and stomach (DeMasters A1). Let me assure you that I have not forgotten this fact. Considering that I have family members who are suffering from the effects of exposure radioactive nuclear waste, it is unlikely that I will ever forget. However, there is an element concerning this issue that many people are unaware of; fossil fuels also cause cancer and other diseases (Herron). People are quick to point their fingers at nuclear energy for giving everyone cancer. To that end, they label nuclear energy as unsafe and conclude that it is best to stick to our current use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, when you consider the deaths of coal miners, as well as other deaths from cancers that are caused by fossil fuel exposure, you realize that fossil fuels are not safer than nuclear energy.

            The use of nuclear energy is the most practical plan for solving the nation’s energy crisis. However, many people become stuck in the past and they refuse to see nuclear energy as a safe and beneficial practice. People need to take it upon themselves to search out the truth for themselves. Unfortunately, it is a common habit in this day and age to believe the myths that circle around. It is sad to think that many people will never know just how much nuclear energy can do for us because they get hung up on these myths. Hopefully someday, reality will prevail and the truth about nuclear energy will be made known.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, nuclear energy is and continues to be a big part of the way of life in America. There is much potential for its use and ways it can benefit society. Unfortunately, short term storage of the waste at nuclear power plants is not a safe method and cannot continue to be practiced for much longer. Finding a workable solution for the nuclear waste problem has been a political and scientific battle. In the wake of Obama’s decision to end the nuclear waste project at Yucca Mountain, it is unclear what direction nuclear power will take. The direction that needs to be taken is building a geologic storage facility for the nation’s nuclear waste. This type of storage is the only safe option that is available to us. While many argue that nuclear power is unsafe, the truth needs to be made known that it is safer than most people realize and that our current rate of energy consumption has put us in a place that we really have no other options because no other form of energy is this available to us.

Works Cited

1. "Benefits of Nuclear Power." n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.

2. De Masters, Tiffany. "Downwinders Voice Fears of Fallout, Nuclear Power." The Spectrum 17 Mar. 2011, sec. A1. Print.

3. Herron, David. "Fossil Fuel Health Risks."Seven Generational Ruminations. 10 Aug. 2005. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.

4. Ivey, Lorraine. Nuclear Waste Storage. Survey. 8 Mar. 2011.

5. Kingsley, Marvin G. and Kenneth A. Rogers. Calculated Risks: Highly Radioactive Waste and Homeland Security. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007. ebrary. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.

6. Macfarlane, Allison M. and Rodney C. Ewing. "Introduction." Yucca Mountain: Uncertainty Underground. Ed. Allison M. Macfarlane, and Rodney C. Ewing. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006. 1-26. Print.

7. Moore, Patrick. "Going Nuclear." The Washington Post 16 Apr. 2006: n. pag. Washingtonpost.com Web. 24 Mar. 2011.

8. Muskal, Michael, and Jim Tankersley. "Obama Pledges Over $8 Billion to New Nuclear Reactors." Los Angeles Times. 16 Feb. 2010: n.pag. Latimes.com. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.

9. Northey, Hannah. "Appeals Court Hints Lawsuit Over Yucca Nuclear Waste Repository May Be Premature." The New York Times 22 Mar. 2011: n. pag. Nytimes.com. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.

10. Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. Nuclear Waste Stalemate: Political and Scientific Controversies. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2007. Print.

11. Wirick, Richard M. "Just Say No to Nuclear Waste." 19 Apr. 2011. n.pag. Cityweekly.net. Web. 19 Apr. 2011.

Yucca Mountain Survey Analysis

While conducting these surveys, I guessed that there would be a fair amount of people who had family members who have been affected by the fallout from the Nevada nuclear testing. However, I wouldn’t have guessed that it would be almost half of everyone I surveyed. I administered 50 surveys and what I found was that 22 people (44%) have a family member that has been affected by the fallout. I think that this will be useful in my essay because there are obviously strong feelings here in southern Utah when it comes to the issue of nuclear power. I think that my survey results also give credibility to my argument because many people may not realize just how much southern Utah has been affected because of nuclear projects. Seeing the percent of affected people is an eye opener for me and I’m sure it will be for others as well.

                Something I found interesting while conducting my survey was that no one answered yes to the question, “Should a nuclear waste project still be considered for Yucca Mountain”. However, four people (8%) responded that they were unsure about whether the answer should be yes or no. The thing that was interesting about this was that the 8% of people who were unsure about the answer were all people that did not have a family member who had been affected by the nuclear fallout. Everyone who had a family member that had been affected had definite strong feelings that Yucca Mountain should not be considered for a nuclear waste project.  Someone wrote a comment on the survey that said their support of a nuclear waste project at Yucca Mountain would “depend on what the alternatives are”. This brought up a really good point that I feel I should address in my essay. Of course, no one wants nuclear waste to be their neighbor. But, it has to go somewhere and people need to be aware of what the options are.

Interview

Because my essay topic is Yucca Mountain and the issue of using it as a dump for nuclear waste, I decided to interview someone who has been affected by nuclear waste. I interviewed my mom because she was diagnosed with cancer due to nuclear testing in Nevada. From this interview, I was able to gain an appreciation of why she and others in her situation are distrustful of the government. When the nuclear testing was going on in Nevada, the government assured its citizens that it was not harmful. Later, when they realized their mistake, they tried to make up for it by helping pay for the medical bills of the people who got sick from the nuclear testing. However, I learned that they only provide this funding to people whose birth date is before a certain time. Even though professional cancer doctors have testified that my mom’s cancer is a direct result of the Nevada nuclear testing, the government refused to help pay for any of her bills because her she was born too late. Another thing I learned from my interview is that scientists who have tested the fallout from the nuclear testing say that the radiation does not reach its half-life until 2012. This means that it is still fairly potent until this time. People are still legitimately getting cancer from the nuclear testing in Nevada, and yet, the government no longer provides funds for these people.

I think the information I gathered from this interview is valuable because it is a first-hand account of the dangers of nuclear waste. Also, it adds to my argument that the government has proven itself irresponsible in this area. They do not believe that anyone is still affected by the fallout; throughout the course of my mom having cancer I watched her hair fall out as well as her lips turn gray. I’d say that those are pretty real effects. 

Putting Care back in Care Centers

America’s current economic status has been the source of a big headache to its citizens. Whether it caught up with you at the gas pump, the grocery store, or when you opened your smaller than average paycheck, everyone has felt the effects of it. Due to this problem, it seems that several cutbacks have become necessary. Companies are looking for ways to eliminate expenses. These eliminations have ranged from eliminating employee bonuses, or in some cases, eliminating employees. I recognize that companies are struggling, and these cutbacks are the only thing that is helping them to survive. However, it is my opinion that there are certain fields of work that simply can’t afford to have cutbacks. Care centers are places that should not have the luxury of cutting corners to save a few bucks. Further, I believe that stricter regulations should be imposed to ensure that care centers cannot fall below certain standards when they are looking to save money.

                A care center is an establishment that has been given the duty of caring for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves. No doubt, it can turn into a messy and unpleasant job. The nurses who work here have to be amazing people. They have been given the responsibility of safeguarding lives and this is precisely the reason that care centers cannot afford to make cutbacks. Most cutbacks that a care center could conceivably make would either directly or indirectly hurt their patents. If any establishment would knowingly make cutbacks that would affect those under their care, they cannot be considered a care center at all. It seems that they would have forgotten that their primary objective and concern should be for their patients, not the thickness of their wallets.

                It is probably fair to assume that no one has any feelings regarding a care center unless they have a loved one living there, or they work there. It is hard to care about something that just doesn’t make a difference in your life. There was a time that care centers did not make a difference in my life. All of that changed when my grandpa was placed in one after he had a severe stroke. This place that he was confined to for five months of his life was only marginally better than a prison. Why? The sad but true reason for this was that this care center had been making budget cuts in order to stay afloat under the pressures of the struggling economy.

                When my grandpa was first placed at this care center, things weren’t so bad. It was obvious that the place was understaffed, the nurses were run ragged. Although they were extremely overworked and lacked the appropriate amount of help, the nurses held up pretty well under the pressure. Over the course of the next few weeks, things kept getting worse. One of the first things that changed was that a new stench settled in the air. Properly cleaning was the first thing the nurses started to slack on. They simply did not have enough people to keep the building cleaned at an acceptable standard. The nurses became slower to respond to calls. When they showed up, they would apologize and explain that more of their colleagues had been laid off.

                Gradually, the nursing staff started to change as well. Not only were they overworked and understaffed, they were also underpaid. Reduction in their paychecks was another thing done by the management to save money. As you can imagine, smaller paychecks caused the nurses to become agitated. My grandpa started getting strange injuries; bumps, bruises, and even a missing tooth. All of these injuries went unexplained by the nursing staff. It was hard to even find a nurse to ask them a question, and if we did their answers were always unclear and evasive. My family developed a rotation schedule so that we could always have a family member at the care center because we could no longer trust the nurses.

                I will never forget the night that I accidentally wandered into the wrong room. The resident of this room was a feeble old woman with sunken eyes. She seemed eager to talk to me so I stayed for a while. When I got up to leave, she begged me to stay. She confided in me that the nurses no longer spoke with her and they barely acknowledged her. She told me that my voice was the first human voice that she had heard in days besides the T.V. It was truly a heartbreaking experience.

                The day my grandpa received the approval to return home was the best day that we had at the care center. I walked out of there and didn’t care to ever come back to a place like that again. However, it was almost a year later that I found myself inside another care center. What I found was astounding. The air in this second care center was fresh and pure. The patients seemed lively. Although the nurses were busy, they weren’t run down. This was a dramatic change from what my experience had taught me about care centers. Upon further examination, the reason for this difference became evident. In this care center, there was one nurse to about every seven patients. After all of the budget cuts had been completed at the prison my grandpa had been at, there was one nurse to about every 15 patients. It was frustrating to me to fully realize that all of the abuse that occurred in the other care center was directly related to a misuse of funds.

                Having to place a loved one in a care center is a difficult thing. Since the first word of care center is care, I believe that they need to be held to that. These institutions should help make a difficult time less painful. They are there to provide adequate care, but they can’t do that unless they are properly staffed and paid. Laws need to be in effect to more closely regulate care centers so that the patients can receive the help and attention they need.

Parking Court?

      It's funny how you can have a good thing going for you, and somehow there always turns out to be a glitch. This is how I feel about the basketball court on Main Street in Washington City. It is my favorite spot to play basketball, and it is almost the perfect court. Except, occasionally, people feel the need to park their cars on it. The change I would like to see is for people to park in designated parking spaces and not on the court.
      I can't even describe the disappointment I feel whenever I go to my favorite court to play ball only to find that it is being used as a parking lot. I do not understand why people park here, it is clearly a place to play basketball, not park your car. I have tried to share the court with these confused people before. I stopped trying to share when I got yelled at because my basketball came too close to someone's prized Escalade.  Ironically, there are available parking spaces right next to the court. All I am asking is that everyone let the court be used for what it was intended for, basketball.

My Favorite Spot

     Imagine being stoked to get out of the house and play some basketball. So, what do you do? You call up some friends and convince them to get off their lazy butts and come with you. Next, you all pile into the car and head off in search of a court. Now imagine that you can't find an available court. The whole trip is pointless now and everyone is disappointed. If you have the same kind of luck that I do, chances are that this has actually happened to you before. However, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Hardly anyone ever uses the basketball court on Main Street in Washington City. This little known fact is what makes this court so great. Also, this court has four hoops and plenty of room for two full size games to be going on at the same time. Because it is an outside court, it is free to play on. However, unlike a lot of outside courts, it is not located in a park that has curfew hours. This means you can play anytime and not worry about being kicked out. So, the next time You're in need of a good basketball court, remember the one on Main Street in Washington.

The Tempo

                There is a certain metallic ring that can only result from a basketball hitting against the hard concrete ground. The sound is one of a kind, unmistakable. To someone who knows the game, this unique sound can say a lot. By simply listening to the dribbling patterns of anyone on the court, you can guess what they are up to. Hard and fast metallic rings indicate that the person with the ball is trying to make a fast break. When the sound fades and becomes slower, you can bet that the ball carrier is searching for an opening, some sort of hole or weakness in the defense. Finally, when the sound stops, a crucial moment has arrived. The absence of the metallic ringing means the player has picked up their dribble. Picking up their dribble has given the player two options: pass or shoot. Of course, none of this would be possible without the actual basketball. The basketball is the object that controls any basketball game.

                Literally, a basketball is a round piece of rubber or leather that bounces. It is typically between 28 and 30 inches in circumference and comes in just about any color you can imagine. However, this is just the physical appearance of a basketball. What it actually means is much more than that definition. Perhaps in the hands of someone who is 6’4” a basketball means a slam dunk. Maybe in the hands of a little kid at the park a basketball would mean a granny shot. To many others, a basketball may symbolize an important part of their lives. The wonderful thing about a basketball is that in the hands of different people it can mean many different things.

                When you pick up a basketball, you can feel the grips. These grips make the basketball feel as if it were designed for your hands. I believe that anyone who loves basketball enough will eventually feel as if a basketball is an extension of them. They will feel as if something is missing when the ball is absent from their hands. Dribbling, passing, and shooting, it is my opinion that when a basketball is in the hands of someone who knows the game, all of this surpasses second nature. Rather, I believe that it becomes first nature, a habit so ingrained in the player that it no longer requires their conscious thought.

                When I was in elementary school, I didn’t really have any friends. This led me to spend my recess times alone with a basketball and a hoop. Oddly enough, my love of basketball is how I made my first friends. Like many activities, basketball brings people together. Take a look at the way the stands fill up at a Jazz vs. Lakers game. You don’t even have to go that far, just look at the crowds that come to the local high school basketball games to see the town’s rivals face off. All these people are being brought together by the game of basketball. In the center of all of it is that simple round piece of rubber called a basketball.

                I said before that a basketball controls the game, and it does. However, a basketball can never control an individual. Each player decides how they will play the game. Each individual is unique and when a basketball is placed in their hands, they are free to choose their own style. While basketball can be a major part of someone’s life, it can’t define them. Rather, a player is what gives definition to the basketball because they decide how they will play the game. So, although the ball controls the game, it is the player that controls the tempo.