Andy wrote on October 03, 2008 05:59 AM: My problem with Yucca Mountain is that it is taking so long. A better alternative wound be oceanic recycling. There are 4,300,000,000 metric tons of uranium in the ocean RIGHT NOW. However, it is so diluted, that it is what is called the background radiation levels. This could be extracted and replaced with waste, of the same amount, and the total level would not change. Of course, the biggest problem to this is a perceived danger. In reality, the science makes sense, but people will assume that we are just "dumping" to quote greenpeace, damn their souls. 'course, it's perceived danger that has always been the problem for nuclear power, since there are no Real inherent problems to it.

Tom Arnberg wrote on April 05, 2008 03:19 PM: I agree with Dwight R.Luerssen.
One or two million years ago, "You stupid idiot, what ARE you doing bringing that dangerous diabolical 'stuff' into our cave? THAT is what burned down our hunting range, crippled Igor, and gave us lung problems from the smoke. What's it called anyway? FIRE!" 1 or 2 million years later: "You stupid idiot, what ARE you doing bringing... RADIOACTIVITY!" It is here to stay. Fire had something good in its favor, don't you think? Get real. If (almost all) of our base load electricity were generated by nuclear power, instead of coal, think of how much better our atmosphere would be, not to mention my lungs. It is the small particles that that escapes through the "bag houses" that load up our lungs. I don't buy into all of the global warming hysteria, but by the time they remove the carbon dioxide from the exhaust and "sequester" it safely underground, coal will no longer be the cheapest source of electric power. However, liquified carbon dioxide gas (at its critical point) makes the best solvent known for scouring the last bit of crude out of the sands, in "tertiary crude oil recovery", after pumping and water flooding. While mobs of pseud-scientists wring their hands, a lot of very intelligent people are advancing an amazing new technology. Yes, mistakes were made, and 32 people were killed by the Chernobyl disaster, and the Swedish engineers were scared when all the radiation alarms went off at their nuclear power plants. The Three Mile Island accident has turned out to be a "blessing in disguise". Look at the record of the nuclear industry since then. But be fair. Look at how many people died from steam boiler explosions before ASME wrote the "boiler test code". Have a nice day!

yucca_insider wrote on October 09, 2007 12:05 PM: David, there is no low-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. The Nevada Test Site has had a low level facility 30 miles away for years.

As to your question about why, you cannot apply state boundaries to this issue. Many plants in other states export their power to regional electrical grids, including to Nevada.

There are many other reasons Yucca is good, including dry climate, remoteness, security, closed water table beneath 1,000 feet of solid rock, etc.

Joel E., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the power you recommend.

Bob Jack, calling Nevadans "cactus clingers" gets you nowhere.

Bob Jack wrote on October 06, 2007 01:13 AM: PS to apdp--Being from SCal( a great place) means that I have more class and education than you, and am not a cactus clinger with his head in the sand when it comes to most everything,including the Yucca Mountain radiation fiasco.

D wrote on October 05, 2007 03:37 PM: I say get the site up and running, and the federal government pay the state and it's residents $$$ for it.
Like the $6500 a year that you get for living in Alaska.

David wrote on October 05, 2007 03:20 PM: Why is it a state that produces no nuclear waste is slated for the left over waste from other states? Also why is there already low level contaminated items (from Washington State)already in storage at Yucca Mountain when the repository isn't open yet?

Joel E. wrote on October 05, 2007 03:02 PM: It sounds scary.. it is not scary. And if that area was ever compromised by water, it would be a reflection of the whole Sierra Nevada range falling into the sea.

We need something however. We need a Atomic Energy Commission regulatory board that would have the power to remove any operation that did not comply with regulations. The power to put people in jail if they feel the regs are not serious. Both inspectors and operators should face obligatory sentencing for not following the rules.

Dwight R Luerssen wrote on October 05, 2007 01:44 PM: I wish to make it known to the RJ and to others in government that many Nevadians are FOR the Yucca repository! I've visited the site and I perceive that moving forward is safe and will reward our state with large sums of income for our residences. A repository is NOT a DUMP! It is a safe place to store worthwhile items that will/might one day be recovered for other use. I dislike the excessively negative "spin" the RJ presents, or allows others to present in their one sided point-of-view.

MrR0ng wrote on October 05, 2007 10:22 AM: Hmm, we can either keep all of the nuclear waste where it is right now, out in the open, under very little security or monitoring, or we can put it into this highly secure and monitored environment. If you knew where the nuclear waste was right now, you would be clamoring for this thing to be open.

apdp wrote on October 05, 2007 09:12 AM: There is nothing wrong with the Yucca Mtn project. It is a good idea to store waste, develop an area of nuclear research and get on with the 21st century.
The idea is sound, the waste will be secure and not at over 100+ sites across the US. The terrorist can now take their pick of targets.
Wake up to the future, build the project and lead the world in nuclear research.
PS Bob Jack, being from Scal does not mean crap, just tells me you were dumb enough to live there for some time.

Read All Comments