Comments about ‘Keep fighting nuke waste’

The spent nuclear rods will eventually be stored in Utah, whether on the Skull Valley reservation or not. We can see that there is interest in building a nuclear plant in Utah. The issue is who will be the benefactor, the Tribe or the State. Unfortunately, the citizens of Utah will be left holding the bag.

I personally don't care whether spent nuclear fuel rods are stored in Utah. Utah has an abundance of useless, ugly desert, and this is a beneficial thing to do with it. If the rods can be safely and securely transported to the storage site, then no one should be concerned about spent rods buried deep in the ground, encased in lead and concrete, hundreds of miles from civilization.

For a state that is constantly arguing against the foreign government, regulations, and impediment of business, it's hilarious to watch Utah fight nuclear waste.

If they were truly against big government overstepping it's boundaries, then they'd allow the Tribe to decide what it wants to do with the land that they own.

If they were truly against regulations, then why are they making such a big fuss over some spent nuclear fuel?

If they truly are for free market and letting business run our lives, then why are they trying to impede others from making money?

The nutcakes from the right just can't make up their minds on what to stand for.

@ The Real Maverick, if you have to ask those questions you are not familiar with Utah.

If the Tribe were allowed to do what they wanted, Utah wouldn't be able to profit from it.

They aren't truly against regulations, they are all for regulations if they receive sufficient campaign contributions.

They don't want to impede anyone who contributes to their campaign fund.

One has to understand that the angst isn't caused by nuclear material, it is caused by non-profitable storage.

After all as the poster above you stated, it is all ugly desert. There is someone who appreciates nature and all she has to offer. Ugly and useless, I believe was the quote. If that doesn't help you to understand the Utah mentality, nothing will.

I don't mind the low level stuff Energy Solutions is handling, but we need to do whatever it takes to keep hot stuff like fuel rods out.

If they're not confident Yucca Mt can handle it, with all the Federal funding Yucca has already recieved and is scheduled to recieve, with the government basically running it and the stable location... what makes us think that a basically broke indian tribe is going to be able to do a better job?

Nuclear waste is...

bad.

Pagan | 10:26 a.m.

That sounds like a blanket-statement to me. Do you mind sharing any specific logic and reasoning that went into your analysis?

I agree with you by they way.

I used to be against nuclear waste in Utah. But if Indians want to do it, I say more power to them. Also I seem to remember the DNews being for Nuke waste when Energy Solutions was pushing it. Now that Indians want to store waste it's the good fight to oppose the waste?

Your editorial is another example of irresponsible journalism. How can you possible conclude that the Yucca Mountain repository was "deeply flawed from the start"? The repository was approved by Congress, endorsed by the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, and scores of scientists working for DOE.
Further, an independent and extensive Environmental Impact Statement prepared by reputable scientists found no significant flaws in the repository. What peer reviewed research have you done or have access to that supports your contention?
Also, you state that military operations in the vicinity of the proposed PFS storage in Utah leaves "open the possibility of accidents that could cause widespread environmental harm" That possibility was NOT left open. The PFS submittal to the NRC contained extensive analysis of the impact of military operations from Hill AFB, including plane crashes onto the storage modules and the potential for exploding ordinance. The NRC's in-depth review of the application agreed with the conclusion that such operations were not risk significant. Did you read either one of these analyses?