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

So are you saying that women's soccor should evolve into this type of...

The Church has never been about hating gays, or any other group. It has only...

Hatch empathizes with Muslims

To which I add Amen, and Amen! [Thank you!]

RSL in win-Windy City situation

this is going to so much fun? Gee who do i cheer for if REAL plays Galaxy? ...

Hall would rather take a hit

The great QBs make defenses pay for bringing pressure. Hall offers up...

I completely concur, this exhibition game was supposed to be easy and a blow...

Maybe we should just back up 50 years and do away with all laws etc. passed...

So does Hall enjoy absorbing the contact as Call says, or in Hall's own...

Well put, let it die. A lot people who want the health care bill haven't...

D-Will, Price sit out Jazz practice

If Jerry studies "game tape" he will see how to beat the Celtics, see Phoenix...

Advertisements
Advertisement