> Ok, I just wanted to get the Rinkies input on a topic that is a close to me. U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham recommends that Yucca Mountain, a dormant volcano, become the site for the US's nuclear waste. It is 100 miles away from Las Vegas, and there are a lots of concerns about it. First, transporting it across the country is risky. Then the fact that it is a dormant volcano that could become active. Also, there is ground water in the mountain that leads to Vegas.
>
> Then John Sununu, who is a lobbyist for the nuke people, said that Nevada is "Not patriotic". Him and Abraham have been using the Spet. 11 tragedy as a way of saying its good for "National Security".
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Ran"Hopefully not a pot-stirrer"dy

The way I like to look at this, is that it isn't a choice between storing waste in Nevada, or not storing it in Nevada. We have 77,000 tons of waste right now in storage ponds in our nuclear facilities. It's a choice between leaving it there, storing it in Yucca, or finding another location. There are downsides any way you look at it. I personally am convinced that the Yucca storage site is the best option.

As for the distance from Las Vegas, (90 miles), the energy department has estimated that the repository would not release radiation for the next 10 thousand years. Also, the national academy of sciences said a couple of years ago (Yucca has been a plan since 1987) that there's no basis to the claim that radiation could somehow affect the groundwater in Nevada. It's a secure underground location-and there's no likely way for anything to escape, barring human error, and possibly terrorism.

Moving the fuel in "wet" transportation casks, as they plan to do, there wouldn't be any significant danger. The casks can withstand any number of accidents, and are safe for transport. As before, the biggest conceivable danger would be terrorism.

I'm convinced that it can, and should be done safely-but the mere notion of that much danger is enough to understandably disturb some people. If we were to take a poll asking every American if they wanted a large nuclear storage facility in their state, most likely we'd get a majority saying no. After all, there's no conceivable reason why anyone would want one in "their backyard".

But even if the danger is non-existent, some people are going to have to be inconvenienced psychologically. The depository for our spent fuel in Yucca would be safer and less vulnerable to a conceivable terrorist strike than what we have right now.

I'm not sure how the proposal is going to go. The governor of Nevada is opposed to it, and with the legislature he could veto it, but then congress could conceivably go ahead and pass it. The house leader is in support of the proposal, with the senate leader against- it may be another close vote, or the whole proposal may be shelved.

I honestly see more political maneuvering behind the debate than honest science at this point. I just hope the matter can be resolved without leaving anyone upset.

Mark"What a yuccy post"N