patrick wrote on April 30, 2009 06:00 PM: mrb:

The question is would complying with the "standard" be sufficient to ensure that the people that would be affected by the dump are safe, and are there other places where the level of protection would be above the standard.

Is it too much to ask that the most hazardous material on earth be placed in a place where the possibility of a problem is the least?

That seems like a reasonable standard to me at least.

mrb wrote on April 30, 2009 03:43 PM: Patrick, et al:

Regarding your glee at re-opening the disposal selection process - you are either smokin' wacky tabaccy or are totally naive. Do you seriously think that re-opening the site selection process will find the "best place" in the country to geologically store nuclear waste? I can guarantee you that 100% of states will pull a NIMBY and this stuff would never go anywhere, but would stay where it is until another political decision is made. You are only hoping that other political decision doesn't bring it back to Nevada.

If you can find a better place than the Nevada Test Site, good luck - already 1000 nuclear weapons exploded, government controlled, 4" annual rainfall, most of which evaporates, one of the lowest population densities in the country, 100 miles from a major population center, closed hydrologic basin, 1000' above the water table, etc etc

And, please don't mention the typical Louxisms - earthquakes (totally overblown risk), volcanoes (give me a break), "the mountain leaks" - I hate to tell you, but every rock on the planet "leaks" - the question is, does it meet the EPA standard?

Get Reid Out wrote on April 30, 2009 01:34 PM: Patrick you're an idiot. Wait a minute, Patrick may very well be Harry Reid replying as one is just as dumb as the oher with their comments.

patrick wrote on April 30, 2009 12:19 PM: yucca:

You just don't get it; no amount of wasted money spent on a dump that was forced down Nevadas throat because of naked political reasons can support that flawed and corrupted decision; it makes no difference that the corrupted political action resulted in a law or not.

If a majority of republicans, or democrats, wanted to put the dump in a state completely without regard to any environmental or safety rules, and they passed a law to that effect would you still argue that the laws the law and that the state involved merely has to accept what has been done?

If you do, then you're just of a different mind than me.

former_yucca_insider wrote on April 30, 2009 11:51 AM: @patrick, the huge difference between what happened then and what is happening now is this:

In 1982, and later 1987, the entire Congress passed laws that led to Yucca Mountain and the license application currently on file with the NRC. Whether or not you agree with the policy, it passed Congress and was signed by the President.

Contrast that with today, where Harry Reid is hijacking a dedicated funding source and essentially defying that law, which is still on the books. He is clearly defying the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

It will cost us all dearly in damages paid to utilities and electricity users who have paid $16 billion (now $30 billion with interest) for a project and have NOTHING to show for it.

And the original problem, waste and spent fuel at more than 120 sites in 39 states, still exists.

Dandin wrote on April 30, 2009 11:10 AM: BILLIONs of DOLLARS could come to Nevada if they would finish the storage site, charge for shipping the nuclear waste here, charge for building a nuclear recycling plant onsite which could recycle 90% of the waste, charge for building a modern nuclear power plant onsite to use the recycled nuclear material, charge for the power produced, and then store the recycled and re-used nuclear material now with a much shorter life span. All very technological feasable and very safe, despite the fears of the undeducated.

patrick wrote on April 30, 2009 09:21 AM: Abad:

Your just the opposite side of the coin; you unrelentingly talk smack abut Reid, I'm just the other side is all.

And, like the vast majority of Nevadans, my opinion is that since Nevada got stuck with the dump because of politics, there ain' thing one wrong with stopping the dump through political means.

Now we can start all over, if the dump is still the cutting edge, and the only way to resolve the problem; fine. Now conduct the EXTENSIVE testing for the BEST place in the ENTIRE country to put the stuff.

IF it turns out that Nevada, and yucca mountain is the BEST place, then I will welcome it with open arms.

Its just that easy, and the real reason Harry deserves a statute is because he accomplished, along with the vast majority of Nevadans, what NO ONE thought was possible. The good senator said that he would do it, he represented his constituents that wanted him to do it, and he did it; seems like the best of politics to me, especially since what he did was in the interests of the political system itself.

aBadReid wrote on April 30, 2009 08:45 AM: patrick;

Where is your so touted 'evidence'?

What proof does Harry Reid have?

Your post obviously shows you are part of the Democratic rhetoric (i.e. nice comment about the statue, that really proves your point next to all the scientific evidence and studies).

Also, I'm not talking about googling and finding one statement that questions a study (sure, with all the studies over the years there will some questioned). Rather, I'm talking about a genuine counter agrument for the Nuclear Facility of Yucca Mountain. Show us some concrete evidence, a viable plan B, anything other than WORDS trying to discredit the project with talks about statue building and hero worshiping!

patrick wrote on April 30, 2009 08:15 AM: The article says it all people; don't quit now cause, like the nuclear waste they want to dump here, this walking zombie can arise from the depths and create untold damage to this state!

But, as an aside, Harry Reid is a state hero, and we MUST build a statute for him in front of every city in this state for the work he has done to STOP THE DUMP!

Way to go Harry!

No_Louxs wrote on April 30, 2009 07:44 AM: Bruce Breslow, the state commission's new executive director

There are a lot of trained, highly educated nuclear engineers who have been unable to find work in the industry since Three Mile Island, yet this politically connected shnook is making $115,000 per year as head of a nuclear bureaucracy. Like Loux before him, the only thing this guy might know about nuclear wastes is that is doesn't belong in the sidewalk recycling bin.

Read All Comments