This is a very ill conceived idea by people who have no idea of what they are
doing or exposing this and the nation to. Since this part of Nevada went through
decades of atomic testing and bomb blasts it seems a natural choice to store the
waste but this is the wrong idea. The area by its past use and 50,000 years of
half life radiation contamination are the very reason not to even go there.My question is whether nuclear reactors are really a cheap power source?
It is not self sufficient and is government subsidized to remain in operation
then there is the eternal problem of 50,000 years to sacrifice hundreds of
square miles of farm land and lives to keep it in operation. Launching it in space doesn't seem a cost effective alternative so what are we
willing to sacrifice? Perhaps we need a moratorium on new power
production and better controls to stop building power dependent development. We
have become too dependent on electricity that is created by the oil dependence.
This country has reached the point of its continued demise so we should
concentrate on saving the nation from destruction.
Perhaps if My 2 Cents would do just an hour of research, s/he would discover the
credibility of the scientists and engineers that studied Yucca Mountain and the
high caliber of work done there. They were from Lawrence Berkeley, Livermore,
Sandia, and Los Alamos National Laboratories, the U.S. Geological Survey, and a
host of top-notch private companies. They included some of the best possible
experts.Harry Reid and the Obama administration cannot cite any
credible science to justify closing Yucca Mountain. Period. It was all done
for political reasons, mainly for Harry Reid to keep being re-elected. All
credible science and engineering studies support Yucca Mountain as a high-level
nuclear waste repository. There is no credible scientific reason it should not
be re-opened and completed.Transportation of radioactive materials
already has an impressive 60 year history -- it's really not much of an issue.