Skeptical Nevadan wrote on July 16, 2008 03:03 PM: Hey, Virg:

You might consider taking the advice of your fellow Nevadans by providing some specifics.

There hasn't yet been a scientific study that seriously undermines the massive body of credible scientific work done at Yucca Mountain.

If I remember correctly, there was one study done by a hydrolgist who alleged that the water table under Yucca Mountain had risen by as much as 1,000 feet in the past and could do so again. This study was instigated and funded, of course, by the state -- to the tune of $1.3 million.

The National Research Council, an independent organization staffed by our country's best scientists, reviewed the study for two years and soundly (though politely) rejected its conclusions.

Another example -- also funded by our state politicians, who have no clue about basic science -- was a study done by Catholic University. In short, the state wanted a study to demonstrate that the highly corrosion-resistant metal used to construct the waste canisters was not so corrosion resistant after all.

So, having received a hefty grant from our state, the good folks at Catholic U. willingly obliged by creating a test chamber that was more like a corrosion chamber of horrors: super-concentrated acid, super-high pressure, etc. In other words, they intentionally made the test conditions into a kind of environmental blowtorch, which promptly caused the metal to corrode, as expected in the first place.

Problem is, nothing close to those conditions exists at Yucca Mountain. It's like trying to test a flame-retardant matress by throwing it into a volcano.

This study, too, was rejected -- in this case by the NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.

And by the way, we already have an irradiated barren wasteland: it's called the Nevada Test Site, where umpteen nuclear bombs were detonated. No impact on the Colorado River thus far...

Expensive? wrote on July 16, 2008 09:02 AM: $90 billion sounds expensive, until you realize that it will be paid for by a fee of only 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour. That's a massive amount of kilowatt hours, but it makes sense because nuclear is 20% of our total U.S. electricity.

Now it is time to let the NRC conduct its independent scientific review of the DOE license application for Yucca Mountain. The fact that Senator Reid has worked very hard to cut the funding for the NRC review and for the earlier work to collect scientific data says a lot about what the real story is. If, as claimed, there is some fundamental scientific problem with Yucca Mountain then collecting more scientific data and getting the independent review by NRC could only help.

Greg wrote on July 16, 2008 08:28 AM: All of you who state facts that you yourself have read somewhere else need to get it right from the horse's mouth. Go to Yucca and take the tour of the facility, learn what is really going on there. Speak with their on site geologists and allow them to show you the facts. Take a look at how they plan on storing this waste (which by the way, is not volatile by any means, it's nearly inert, that's why it's waste in the first place). I'm sorry Virgil, but construction has advanced quite a bit since 2000 B.C.E. (since you decided to cite the pyramids as the pinnacle of longetivity), and the whole reason you don't know of anything that has lasted longer than a few thousand years is because we have only been capable of building structures on that scale for a few thousand years. I'm sorry but your alarmist view is quite incorrect, as groundwater only accounts for about 10 percent of the water we use, and that groundwater is NOWHERE NEAR Yucca. Yucca was specifically chosen due to the fact that water seeps into aquifers poorly there, and the geological shape of the surrounding basin keeps the whole area isolated. Besides, how is this waste supposed to find its way into the groundwater anyway when it is permanently sealed and stored? It isn't going to be transported out in the open in the back of pickup trucks either, so it's completely harmless during travel (unless you are stupid enough to attempt to board the transport and try to unsuccessfully access the waste, which is impossible the way it is stored), and it is utterly useless as weapons' grade material. So please, do everyone a favor, put your radiation suit on, and go hide, Virgil.

Jerry Mac wrote on July 16, 2008 08:15 AM: Virgil A. Sestini wrote on July 16, 2008 07:38 AM: "Defying and altering scientific arguments against the repository was a tactic cleverly used to promote the Yucca site. Contrary to valid scientific data that raised serious questions about safety of the project Bush yielded to lobbyists. He lied to us when he said carefully evaluation of all scientific factors would be made before any decision would be made."

Virgil: What scientific data raised serious questions about the repository? Be more specific particularly to those that were defied or altered. Otherwise your comments are pure conjecture, and politically biased for that matter.

Myself, I believe in science over politics. I believe in science to the point that we can build whatever we want and under a set of criteria. We have a very good understanding of the material, thermal, and mechanical sciences. The question is: How much do we want to spend? Obviously, with regards to Yucca Mountain, it is expensive.

Wasted Taxpayer $$$$ wrote on July 16, 2008 08:13 AM: That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $720 million per day cost of the worthless war in Iraq.

Uh? wrote on July 16, 2008 08:04 AM: Virgil, wtf are you talking about? Colorado River? Yucca Mountain's ground water is isolated from all other sources including the Colorado River. Do some research before you start spreading BS.

JonR wrote on July 16, 2008 07:50 AM: Just think how much of that $90B would be spent here in Nevada! We need to diversify and not depend on gambling as our almost sole source of revenue to keep our economy afloat! Knee-jerk Democrats like Berkley and Reid have other agendas that do not include the well-being of Nevada. We continue to elect them at our own risk.

The Yucca Mountain Project is safe, sane and practical. Keeping the waste spread out all over the country as the Democrats (bought and paid for by the environmentalist extremists) want is just plain stupid.

People of Nevada, start thinking for yourselves and investigate the facts and benefits of the Yucca Mountain Project. Do no rely on corrupt politicians to plan your lives and well-being.

Virgil A. Sestini wrote on July 16, 2008 07:38 AM:

George W. Bush promised to use scientific findings to determine the safety and future use of Yucca Mountain. The perspiration from his hand on the Bible on which he took the oath of office was not yet dry when he yielded to pressures from the Nuclear Power Plant lobby to issue presidential directives to advance the nuclear repository project.

Defying and altering scientific arguments against the repository was a tactic cleverly used to promote the Yucca site. Contrary to valid scientific data that raised serious questions about safety of the project Bush yielded to lobbyists. He lied to us when he said carefully evaluation of all scientific factors would be made before any decision would be made.

Recently, John McCain has mouthed the very same promises. A careful look will be made of all scientific factors before any decision is made. Congressional lobbyists are pushing hard to get the project advanced as far as possible before the 2008 election.

I did not trust George W. Bush then or now, and I do not believe John McCain. We are again faced with the terrible prospect of having the most dangerous substance in the universe stored in a questionable repository for thousands, if not millions of years. They claim the site will be safe for at least ten thousand years. I do not know of anything man has built that has ever lasted more than a few thousand years, i.e. the Pyramids.

If this material ever gets into the ground water and eventually to the Colorado River, the entire southwest including Northern Mexico will be unable to use the water safely. Visions of a barren wasteland in the west as in The Planet of the Apes is more than just a science fiction.

letsciencedecide wrote on July 16, 2008 07:25 AM: Once again, misinformation by the media! Yes, the projected budget has increased. But the major cause of the increase is that the projected amount of waste has doubled. Congress set the law up orginally with the concept of two repositories (Yucca was to be the first), the higher budget would combine both at one location - so, in actuality the projected budget has come down because all the site investigation work would not have to be repeated and only one repository would be constructed.

The license application is being reviewed by the NRC - let the science decide.

To Ms. Berkley- wrote on July 16, 2008 06:02 AM: Berkley-

Please step back, take a breath, and wait to see what the NRC has to say about Yucca.

In the meantime, you may want to consider a game plan for negotiating for benefits if this is approved. (Maybe signficiant dollars for UNLV, Roads, Schools, etc...)