From Deseret News archives:

Utahns irked by N.Y. Times editorial

Backing of Goshute dump spurs state leaders' anger

Published: Saturday, Sept. 17, 2005 12:18 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Read the New York Times editorial "The Nuclear Waste Site in Utah."

WASHINGTON — A New York Times editorial endorsing the storage of spent nuclear fuel on Skull Valley's Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah has prompted the expected outrage and contempt among Utah political leaders.

But what is more worrisome, some say, is the Friday opinion piece suggests Utah would be the appropriate place to store nuclear waste even if a permanent site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., does not proceed as planned.

"This seems like just another example of Easterners thinking they know what's best for us in the West and trying to tell us what to do with our lands," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

"It was clearly written by someone who has probably never been to our west desert and obviously doesn't understand the military implications of this proposal," he added. "To put a nuclear waste facility in the direct flight path of jets entering the most valuable test and training range our military has just doesn't make sense. The Times should have been able to recognize that."

Story continues below
In its editorial, the Times concluded, "We remain hopeful that Yucca can qualify as a permanent disposal site. But if Yucca fails to pass muster with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation will need a centralized surface site to fill the gap until a safe burial location can be found. The Indian reservation in Utah can fill that purpose."

Their rationale? Because it "becomes awkward and costly to guard and maintain the storage casks after the reactors themselves have been retired from service," the editorial says. And, the piece added, "it seems desirable to have a backup site" should Yucca Mountain not be approved.

The editorial makes a passing reference the "small, poor Indian tribe" but makes no mention that Native Americans elsewhere are almost unanimously opposed to the proposal, with some groups even going so far as to call it environmental racism.

"The editorial speaks for itself, and we are not going to discuss it," said Toby Usnik, spokesperson for the New York Times.

Does the editorial endorse environmental racism and Eastern elitism? "I can't comment on that," Usnik said.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, said he appreciated "the folks occupying the ivory tower of the New York Times for their input on what's best for us. I love it when intellectuals in New York decide that the best nuclear waste policy is to get it out of their back yards and ship it to Utah, which they probably still consider to be the frontier."

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image
Deseret Morning News graphic

previousnext

Latest comments

Celtics crush Jazz

What a great night. THe knicks and Jazz both lost. Keep collecting the ping...

Will state consider gay rights law?

Talk about discrimination, segregating and writing laws to protect gays is...

Gay advocates trek to LDS office

Wow, You are SO right on "Recovering". God IS waiting for US to make the...

Letters: Isn't that bribery?

I think you're thinking of a previous "president".

Meet the climbing mayor

Living room converted to a climbing gym? Well, she clearly is no slave to...

One might also call it blackmail because he knows that it would be...

Letters: Commentary ignorant

Your heartfelt letter will bring a tear to Mr. Gale's eye, your concern for...

Utah: $850M budget shortfall

If the state government was serious about cutting costs they would be cutting...

Letters: Obama 'too busy'

Did you write about your disappointment with Bushco CEO Cheney?

Re: ". . . and as long as they don't force it on others I find it appauling...

Advertisements
Advertisement