Deseret News | Would Utah firm open U.S. door to nuclear waste?

Reader comments
Would Utah firm open U.S. door to nuclear waste?

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Thinkin' Man | 3:43 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Charlotte, the point of the rules and regulations put on Energy Solutions means the radioactive material WON'T pollute the desert.

If you wanted to know more about how your car works, who would you ask-- an engineer at Porsche or an environmental activist at Green Peace? The experts in the nuclear industry are the ones with the greatest experience and expertise, so they are the ones to ask.

We must make decisions based on sound scientific analysis, not emotional response. Every controversial project elicits the "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) response. It is not an important factor to consider because it exists everywhere, and thereby does not favor one site over another. Show me the science!

Stunned | 4:06 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

JW, you obviously have never experienced the devastation caused by the effects of contamination. I have multiple friends and family members who have suffered greatly due to the "safe" testing done by the government. I personally have two children (one deceased) with birth defects caused by "low level" testing performed and admitted to by the government, and they were never even directly exposed! There is no such thing as "safe" and "low level" when dealing with toxic waste and testing. It is ignorant and uneducated to say so. How dare you insinuate that there is no risk, and how dare you assume that the desert holds no interest or attraction for anyone else. If you're so educated on the subject, why haven't you researched the other side . . . the victims of waste and testing gone awry? And for your information, I have spent years educating myself on the subject so that I wouldn't fall prey to its emotional and controversial aspects. I prefer facts and figures, and they rarely lie.
Energy Solutions, please leave Utah.

just a matter of time..... | 4:17 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

I think the evidence is clear...look at how fast the legislature passed the bill dealing with this issue last year.

I know for a fact that energy solutions gave out thousands and thousands of dollars - they gave it unsolicted to people running that had no chance of winning.

I know there are a few that did not accept their money - I guess that would be called integrity. Maybe that's something you're not familiar with.

I wouldn't accept money from a special interest group that I didn't agree with - would you?? That doesn't seem right.

I've done some research....so do me a favor and look into their records yourself and then see what explaination you come up with. Look up how much money they accepted and then which way they voted for. Decide for yourself if they are indeed bought and paid for.

Comments continue below

Charlotte Van Tielen | 4:50 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Thinkin' Man........mine is not an "emotional response." I did say that I would not object to being responsible for our OWN nuclear waste staying here. As far as the rest of the world.........they will just have to figure out their solutions themselves. (I would advise them to stay away from Energy "Solutions," though.....).

so what? | 4:48 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Nuclear waste in Utah?
What difference does it make?
The place is trashed anyway.

Anonymous | 4:49 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

I swear three fourths of the posts on here are from energy solutions people. They are only to handle low level waste. The stuff from Italy is hotter. And when the dump closes down in the East, Utah will be handling even hotter material. All traveling down the road and rails through where you live and your children play.

NO destitute third world country wants it or the jobs it' brings. Why should Utah.

No company will want to locate in northern Utah next to a toxic waste dump. Companies will balk at the thought of moving to a state that is the garbage dump of America and now the world. It's going to destroy our ability to build up the Wasatch front.

Given the choice would you want to raise your child in a clean state, or in the dump yard of America. Remember Creamer already has us filling up valleys with New Jerseys waste.

Karole Nelson | 4:51 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Are we nuts? We can't even find a place for our own nuclear waste. What reason could there be except unmitigated greed by American business for importing another country's waste to be buired on American soil? Any government official approving this needs his hands surgically removed from nuclear industry's wallet.

Say NO to Energy Solutions | 4:56 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Energy Solutions clearly has its employees putting in all the positive remarks... nobody in their right mind who's not a part of Energy Solutions would want nuclear waste here.... The only people who want this stand to personally benefit... Nuclear waste will lower property values in the entire state .... Its appauling that energy solutions was even allowed to do business here... Time to SAY NO

Spent Fuel Cells | 5:15 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Dear Anonymous@3:40.

If its true that "These are easily recycled and reusable anywhere in the world", why is Italy looking to get rid of them?

Do Jimmy Carter resolutions apply to Italy?

Will Pearson | 5:21 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Fat chance Utah politicians will refuse more nuclear waste, what with EnergySolutions Arena, and related businesses operating around us all!

Anonymous | 5:41 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

You fools!
Do you really think you have a say in the matter?
Don't forget you are "subject to Kings, Rulers Magistrates ..."
So shut up and just do what you're told!

Concerned Citizen | 6:12 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Energy Solutions is the most despicable company I have seen in a very long time. They completely lie to the general public. KSL should send Debbie Dujanovic robed in a lead apron with a Geiger counter to the Clive exit at I-80 and watch it go ballistic. Then see how many of you want the world's nuclear waste in our backyard poluting our beautiful state for thousands of years.

Hey JW | 7:05 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

A few of words about the industry and the gov't loooking out for our safety and best interests in disposing nuclear radiated waste: That mountain next to Beatty, NV where billions of dollars have been spent for nothing.

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT trust the government or private industry to look out for our best interest.

Thinkin' Man | 9:39 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

They're spent fuel RODS, not cells, and they could be used as fuel in a breeder reactor. That's not the kind of radioactive material this story is about.

Anonymous | 10:19 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

One terrorist bomb and Salt Lake valley would glow like a jewel in the night.

To build a facility this close to a large metro area is totally irresponsible. Especially when we are down wind of it. When the other facility closes in the US we are due to take it, and it is much hotter.

Energy Solutions also has a contract to dispose of several nuclear plants in the United Kingdom. Why are they using Utah to dispose of the worlds garbage. Not even starving African countries want it.

Look up Skull valley, it's the area where they are at. Back in the 60's the government conducted "safe" tests there of nerve gas. It killed thousands of sheep, and if a wind had picked up, it would of killed most of Salt Lake City and surrounding areas.

Get Real! | 11:30 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008

Dear Captain Howdy,

The catastrophic event is called an earthquake!

That's the one thing that has not and cannot be addressed enough, no matter how much reinforced bunkerizing is attempted or the like. It's the one factor that either get brushed of as nothing serious, or is minimalized to absurd levels, or, as you have so handily done, used the tool of unfounded ridicule to discredit the concern.

How bout you show the readers here, beyond a shadow of doubt, both scientifically and historically, if the repository site is actually able to withstand a catastrophic earthquake of the magnitude predicted for the greater Wasatch front/Great Basin?

Have you spent the time studying just how unstable the Great Basin's geology is, with all the subterrainian and surface hot springs that dot the very area where the repository is located, all indicating just how unstable the area would be in the event of an earthquake event?

In many ways it has geological features similar to Yellowsone, and no one in their right mind would even think of putting a nuclear waste repository there.

Your ridicule and minimilizing of pertinent facts you probably already know isn't impressing anyone, except maybe you.

Spent Fuel Cells Response @ 5:15 | 12:50 a.m. March 1, 2008

There are 3 regularly used fissile atoms used in processing nuclear energy, 2 of which are uranium isotopes, the other is plutonium. Right now, under current government regulations, our "nuclear waste" consists mostly of still fissile uranium and plutonium isotopes; these fuel cells need only be refined and then they can immediately be used again. Who cares what's going on in Italy? There are countries already doing this on a regular basis, i.e. France and Luxembourg. Once again, after these fuel cells have been recycled, their final products are environmentally safe. That means if we would spend less time following a sissy executive order signed by Jimmy Carter, and focus more efforts on recycling these cells and using them to their full capacity, there would not be any "nuclear waste" to worry about.

Nuclear Power Plants operate above 90% efficiency in converting chemical energy to usable energy. There is nothing that compares- an automobile operates at around 20% efficiency, and the human body fairs only slightly better at about 35-40%. Quit fighting a useless fight of where to store these fuel cells, and spend more time making it so we can get rid of them altogether.

Resident of USA | 4:47 p.m. March 25, 2008

It is horrible that EnergySolutions would want to put the whole state of Utah in Jeopardy of their lives just so that they can get a little money from European Countries. How selfish of them.

Hobo cheese wrestler | 1:38 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

I think the the Italians can keep their waste. The u.s does not need any more polution in it. we are trying to get rid of nuclear waste. Does the u.s want to raise the effcts of global warming I think not. I think

MM95 | 1:43 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

If you toxicate the usa with nucular waste where would animals live. But not just the USA toxicading euroupe an china or even south america would be even way worse.it's worse when it's radioactive to i mean what if global warning happend it would be humans fault. but somehow the presedent and congress wont stop poluting.So they think that global warning is a myth exept for al gore and the guys who accually came up with the thereory of global warning and accually studdied about it.

GET ON BOARD! | 1:04 p.m. Feb. 17, 2009

Do your research people. You want to help the Economy? Let it happen. Only 8% of the Low Level Radioactive Waste would even end up in Utah, the rest being completely destroyed, and then it is sealed in the ground with virtually no chance of it leaking out. These are sealed cells where the Waste is store are checked Multiple Times every day. The level of this waste does not even come close to going over the legal parameter's that the gov't has set. You get more radiation standing in front of your microwave while its running than you would being on the Energy Solutions Site in Utah. If your going to criticize, know what your talking about people. You are only so skeptical because you have grown up completely ignorant to reality. you really want to know? Go take a tour of the Dump site. They off free tours. Get educated before you turn off. Do You want Thousands more to lose their Jobs?

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.