Published: Monday, April 2 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
I would remind the writer of southern utah, utah has no reason to trust the
government or scientist when it comes to anything nuclear. Utah has been lied
to in the past; what assurance do we have we are not being lied to now?I
also would point out that energy solutions has already been caught taking
nuclear waste that is hotter then for what they were licenced for.They
claim it was an innocent mistake; what is ask is if their act is so together how
did it happen?
The problem is what happens when Energy Solutions goes out of business. Like
the tailings left in Moab from bankrupt uranium mining operations, the toxic
waste threatening the health and welfare of local residents was left for local
government to "manage" until an earmark could be procured from the
federal government to clean it up. It's easy for people who
live far away from the nuke waste to proclaim it safe. For those of us who live
near and deal with it on a daily basis, the idea of "safe and monitored"
waste is not something you can trust as a long-term solution. Eventually Utah and American taxpayers will be the fallback on
"monitoring" it for time and eternity. Just ask those of us in Moab!
If Nuclear waste is so safe, why weren't other states jumping at the
opportunity to take this stuff?You say that the pits are lined with
clay, really? And nothing will fall through into the ground water? What happens
when an earthquake occurs?In southern Utah, a company left
radioactive ties after it went out of business. Who ended up cleaning up the
mess and paying for it? Oh yeah, taxpayers. So if Energy Solutions goes out of
business, will taxpayers again have to clean up after the private sector?What about the message accepting waste gives to other states and
countries? I don't want my state to be known as a dump.KEEP THE
WASTE OUT! The people don't want it. Lets not allow some folks
with ties to special interest, like Mr. Michael Lee, benefit at our expense.
"As a desert is arid, co-mingling with ground water or rain is
minimized"That is comforting.
Perhaps your neighborhood would be a good place to put it.
If “Nuclear waste is safe”, why do they spend so much money to move
it to Utah?
To "The Real Maverick" lets calm down. If Energy Solutions goes out of
business, there is no reason to relocate the safely contained waste. Another
company can easily step in and take over the operations.If an
earthquake occurs, it isn't a big deal. The suff is already buried in an
area where the water table is far away. Plus, with the liquifaction that would
occur in the Sal Lake Valley, it would only bury the waste deeper, and make it
even more harmless. You also forget that the containers holding the waste are
designed to withstand major disasters. In other words, seismic events or
natural disasters are not a problem.To "Ultra Bob" we get
the waste because we have an area that ideally meets with federal regulations
for long term storage. The stuff that isn't safe is currently stored on
site at some nuclear power plants and at the Hanford site in Washington State,
and some day at Yucca Mountain. The biggest reason for the stuff coming to Utah
is because people such as yourself and other liberals are afraid of it because
you don't understand it.
If nuclear waste is so safe why do they reuse to store it at the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository which was specifically designed for that purpose?
Careful Rifleman or someone might say"people such as yourself
and other liberals are afraid of it because you don't understand it."
Some don't trust the government to certify that nuclear waste can safely be
stored in Utah, yet they trust the government to take 17% of our gross wages to
protect our health. If the government can't be trusted, then why would we
allow it to administer health-care, Social Security, Medicare and all of the
other budget breaking programs?Either the government is trustworthy
or it isn't. Either the government knows what it's doing or it
doesn't. Either the government has a "track record" showing that
it is totally aware of all possible problems or it doesn't have that
"track record". Either Social Security is safe and secure with funds
available to handle all promised payments or it is not. Either Medicare is
solvent and able to handle all present and future needs or it is not.Which is it? Can we believe the government in all things or can't we?
If we can't trust the government with a simple thing like waste disposal
that can be monitored and verified, why then are there so many people clamoring
for government administered health care?
Re: JoeBlow"people such as yourself and other liberals are afraid of
it because you don't understand it."Actually I support
nuclear energy. I just wonder why Senator Harry Reid is so opposed to storing
the waste below ground in a depository that the United States has already
invested over US$9B to develop? What does he know that he ain't telling
the rest of us?
More Conservative hypocrisy….We can’t trust the Government of
anything, ButWe believe them when they tell us Nuclear waste is
safe.Somehow – I think they dis-trust the mean old evil nasty
Government, Unless it’s a Corporation paying that Government to tell
them something they want said.
Redshirt. “The biggest reason for the stuff coming to Utah
is because people such as yourself and other liberals are afraid of it because
you don't understand it.”Why would they spend all that
money just to upset people like me?
Bad bad bad. Have you ever been through the West Desert in a wind storm? I have
and I'm sorry but between Dugway, Tooele and Energy Solutions you're
going to tell me nothing strange is coming over those mountains? I was also
around when we were told no problem with nukes being tested in Nevada and saw
many dying from fallout and believe to this day that we are still feeling the
effects. If it can be safely stored then let on site storing be a condition of
approval. I think after watching what has happened in Japan we would look for
The question is not whether the blended waste is safe or not. The question is
whether blended waste qualifies to be classified as other "class a"
waste. The answer is a resounding no.
Re: LDS LiberalIn 1968 6,000 sheep were killed during chemical
warfare testing by the United States Army who then tried to cover it up. We can
always trust our government to tell us the truth ..... can't we?
Rifleman,I also support nuclear. And I do believe that some on the
left are misguided in that regard (as are some on the right.)But, I
believe that many businesses will, at times, sacrifice safety in order to
increase profit.So, I support reasonable govt regulation. And yes,
sometimes that regulation goes too far.I also believe that we could
get rid of most regulation if C level employees were jailed when they made
profit over safety decisions. But, the large corps will bribe our
politicians to insure that does not happen.
About 40,000 people die each year in auto accidents. Transportation is risky,
but necessary and we look for ways to make it safer. We cannot have energy,
whether it is carbon based or another mode, without some element of risk. A
rational discussion on nuclear power compared to other "safe" options
would be better than what is now in progress.
Vidar,That was back in the 50's. We know a lot more about radio
activity now, and what to do and what NOT to do.Constantly bringing
up the scare tactics of Southern Utah in the 50s should not work anymore for
anybody who knows the current state of affairs when it comes to handling
radiactive waste.I'd never say "radioactive waste is
safe", because it's not. But the low level waste they handle at Clive
can be handled in a safe manner. And it's not as dangerous as open air
nuclear testing (which is inherenlty dangerous, and we all know that now).We have learned a lot in the past 70 years. We have learned how to
safely handle nuclear weapons AND nuclear waste. It's not the same as it
was in the 40's and 50's. We've come a long way since then.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTok, if we know so much more
now; how did the hotter nuclear waste find its way into the clive facility?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments