It's not that important as long as you don't spend long periods of time near it. By the time waste is shipped to Yucca the most dangerous isotopes will already have decayed. And once it's stored inside the mountain it won't threaten anybody.

Does the technology exisit to protect those who drive and protect these trains and trucks from the radiation?

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan

[edited]

interesting comment. you are honest enough to claim that NY is more important than Nevada to the country.

but tell me, why would a nuclear waste dump not have a favorable effect in New York? is it dangerous? is it bad for business? is it because the people don't want it there?

you and Big Jim (pardon me if I've got that wrong) want a debate on the science of nuclear waste dump safety.

but to do that is to concede outright the more important issue that neither of you can get a handle on: in this more or less democratic country, what is it, beyond expediency and political clout, that gives you the right to impose costs and burdens on others for your own choices?

and "because science sez so " is not a reason. "Because New York is more important than Nevada", if that is your reason, is at least honest.

if it doesn't threaten anybody, then you keep it.

There is no site in New York that is as useful as Yucca Mountain.

Yucca Mountain, as a federal project, is of cost to all citizens. You're continually trying to play the poor downtrodden little guy act. It won't work. All Americans pay for Yucca. It is a Federal project.

As for burden, what burden? If anything, it may give jobs to some people in your area and provide a boost to the economy.

Why not? Yucca will have no effect on you so why not follow what the scientists have concluded and put the facility there?

Wirraway, if "science sez so" (that's says, by the way) isn't a reason, then why is "you said so" a reason?

I said once it's buried inside Yucca Mountain, it doesn't hurt anybody.

He didn't say that. You have taken his quote out of context. It wouldn't be bad because of any objective danger, but because of uniformed people being scared of it - exactly like you are now. And regardless, this is no site in New York or the entire country as useful as Yucca Mountain - hence why it was chosen.

Again I will bring up my points, which you entirely ignored:

1. Yucca Mountain was chosen for nuclear wastes because it is the safest place in America to store them.

2. Nuclear plants are much safer and cleaner than coal power plants. Coal plants are proven to kill 16,000 people a year from the pollution alone, not to mention miner injuries, acid rain, the radiation release, or the waste produced. The only deaths proven to be from commercial nuclear reactors are those resulting from the improperly designed Chernobyl.

3. You have failed to address my point about radiation exposure, which I will reproduce here:


4. Yucca Mountain was chosen scientifically, NOT politically, because it is the safest place to store nuclear waste in the country.

5. The primary reason why waste has to be stored in Yucca Mountain is because the anti-nukyular activists refuse to let us reprocess the fuel (by the way, I will add that one of the former nuclear fuel reprocessing centers was in New York state).

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

So, there is no danger of ground water contamination at Yucca Mountain, even if the containment vessels and walls fail?

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan

No. That's why it was chosen - the rocks of Yucca Mountain are not porous.

Just a word on the containers themselves;

They are extremely well designed. I've seen one (filled with water) hit by a train during testing and it did not rupture. Nothing was spilled. The train on the other hand...

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

And even if they did somehow rupture, which is unlikely, as The Supreme Canuck indicated, they would cause no harm - that's what the mountain is there for.

Waste disposal for the anal retentive.

This page describes some of the reasons why coal is far more dangerous than nuclear power. It releases much more radiation and pollution (well actually, that's not really fair since nuclear plants don't release any air pollution, but we'll leave that aside for now) and also destroys a lot of useful materials in the coal.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

these deceptive debating practices are wearing thin. I am not arguing against nukes -- I don't care about your choice for commercial use under the right conditions, and I like atomic weapons -- so comparisons to coal fired plants are off point. they are also irrelevant for reasons discussed elsewhere, mainly that the risks and costs are spread out over time and distance.

the only response I'm seeing here to the political rights question of the basis for imposing your burden on someone else is that it is expedient and the safest option. and that prattle about how everyone is burdened equally because Yucca Mountain is on a federal reservation.

NIMBYism is bad, but at least I can accept an honest admission of such, afterall, politics is not a zero-sum game and Nevada will eventually reap more federal payoffs before Yucca Mountain goes operational than what's currently on the table.

In this case -- and moreso on this and the companion thread -- what I find disgraceful is how science has let itself be prostituted to politically-defined goals and the blindness of some to this kind of manipulation. you could say it began with the overinflated promises of nuke energy, continued with the budget busting construction costs and the astonishing practice of beginning an industry without the key element of waste disposal in place. either the regulators and the industry was lying about waste hazards then, or they're lying about it now, and either way, they did it with the assistance of science.

just as offensive is the gall of scientists who would gladly substitute scientific pronouncements in place of the preferences of the people. this is a free country. people have a right to make scientifically incorrect decisions, be it to drive ever larger SUVs or vote down nuclear waste dumps.

How are we being deceptive? We bring up multiple, clearly stated facts. You respond with hysteria.

Wirraway, you seem to be defending people's right to make stupid decisions. That's OK. You can make all the stupid decisions he wants, at the end of the day, it is the most intelligent thing that must be done. As I said, using your logic one could say that it's OK to drink mercury or jump off a cliff (that is, as long as the politicians didn't make you do it).

So you've made a stupid decision. Don't cry to us about it. We're going to act on intelligent decisions. As Glom said, we do not require the world to consistently operate according to the expectations of the ignorant.

You continue to conspiracise about politicians using science to their own ends. You don't seem to want to accept that Yucca is anything but a political decision.

I'm not even going to go into your other points. I have two things to say:

1. If you want to complain about science, do it in ATM.

2. Address my five points. I'm not even going to bring up other points or attempt to debunk your points - again - before you address these points which you have repeatedly ignored. In case you're too lazy to scroll back up to them, here they are again:

1. Yucca Mountain was chosen for nuclear wastes because it is the safest place in America to store them.

2. Nuclear plants are much safer and cleaner than coal power plants. Coal plants are proven to kill 16,000 people a year from the pollution alone, not to mention miner injuries, acid rain, the radiation release, or the waste produced. The only deaths proven to be from commercial nuclear reactors are those resulting from the improperly designed Chernobyl.

3. You have failed to address my point about radiation exposure, which I will reproduce here:


4. Yucca Mountain was chosen scientifically, NOT politically, because it is the safest place to store nuclear waste in the country.

5. The primary reason why waste has to be stored in Yucca Mountain is because the anti-nukyular activists refuse to let us reprocess the fuel (by the way, I will add that one of the former nuclear fuel reprocessing centers was in New York state).

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

I don't know about you BigJim, but I'm getting sick of all these "debates" with people who refuse who defend themselves in a logical matter. This is just like mr arriba's crop circle threads where he ignores all the questions that he can't answer and responds with hysteria.

Just once I would like a nice serious discussion where both sides actually defend their arguments by answering the questions thrown at them. Not just say the same thing over and over again.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

A man has the right to make as many stupid decisions as he wants. But that doesn't mean the world is obliged to accept those stupid decisions.

"We do not require the world to consistently operate according to the expectations of the ignorant."

I would too. Unfortuantely, that requires both sides to have knowledge of what they are talking about, which is rare.

I second that. And yet we debate them anyway. ops:

good. start by answering questions I've put to you.

remember, this isn't usenet, and innuendo and ad hominems aren't necessary.

You answer ours and we'll answer yours.

Your attempts to defend your opposition to Yucca seemed to be based not on any credible argument that Yucca poses a threat or some form of hardship to you, but that it is the product of politicians exploiting science to upset people at one of America's most important tourist areas. You also seem to be suggesting that your position should be given credibility simply because it is your right to make a stupid, uninformed decision. In fact, while that may be your right, that does not translate into our responsability to accept a decision.

I hope you're joking. How dare you say something like that when you ignored my five points at least six times? Your questions have been answered -at length - and yet you repeat the same things, over and over. There are no evil politicans out to get Nevada.

Now address my five points.

Wirraway, if your concern with Yucca is proximity, I have to tell you that 100 miles is a very safe distance. Heck, standing on the mountain is a safe distance, but you're 100 miles away. You see, I know this because I live 200 km (124.274 Miles) away from the Chalk River Nuclear Research facility. It's where most of Canada's nuclear research and development is done. In fact, I get water from the Ottawa River, downstream from Chalk River and there are no ill effects to the population of Ottawa. There is no radiation poisoning. There is no elevated cancer level. It's completely safe.

Yucca Mountain is about the same distance from where you live. It isn't harmful at all.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

thanks, Supreme. my concern wasn't distance or safety, but other issues.

but given the trend towards usenet-style "argument" on this issue, I'll pass on further discussion.

My concern about fission power has never been about the science, it's been about the economics.

As in, "Ed, I want you to take off your engineer's cap and put on your Manager's cap..."

Translation: Since I don't really know what I'm talking about or how to address the points you brought up, I'm leaving. But I 'm not going to admit that, I'm just going to say that you forced me off.

Another victory for logic and fact.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

What usenet-style argument? So far what I'm seeing is this:

Pro-nuclear: Gives valid reasons why Yucca is an ideal place for a nuclear waste storage area. Gives examples and the science behind our reasoning. Points out how safe it is.

Anti-nukylar: Thinks everyone is out to get Nevada. Objects to Yucca with reasons based on ignorace and has become so personally attached to the reasons "why not" that they refuse to even consider that they could be wrong.

I'm willing to be that any pro-nuclear person on this board, myself included, doesn't care one bit as to the actual location of where we store our nuclear waste. If it turned out to be across the street from one of us, so be it. We understand that it's safe and the chance for disaster is extermely low.

We also understand that Yucca mountain is the best choice. That is why we support it, not because of some plot against Nevada.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

I would love for them to open a reprocessing facility near me. I could do a work experience there.

I think the key is to explain the details - as is being done here. You face a formidable task in trying to convince people that wastes can be handled safely. Its more than just the permanent storage site. Many people will look at the transportation issue and wonder about the transport of the stuff from New York to Nevada for example. Do we send it by rail? What if the train wrecks (known to happen) or terrorists strike it (a lot of miles to protect)? Do we send it by truck - that's a lot of trucks out there and that many more chances for an accident or opportunities for a terrorist to attempt to steal the stuff.

So a lot of people would need to know how those kinds of concerns are addressed before they would be comfortable with it.

I'd say we send it by truck to multi-state collection centers, and from there we ship it by rail to Mt Yucca.

You can build the containers so that even in the event of a truck or train crash, the containers would remain sealed. In fact, I believe that's how they're built today.

The trucks can be sent randomly, unmarked and in different vehicle types everytime to help keep them safe. The trains can travel slow enough to not risk derailment, with an escort "train" in front to look for broken track or ambushes and one behind to watch for attacks from the rear. Heck, you could even have helicopters or fixed wing aircraft escort if you wanted.

It can be made safe, many people just don't want to try.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

usenet style flame wars involve ad hominems, misquotes and misrepresentations of another poster's positions, just like you're doing now.

maybe you'd like to think this over.

Sorry wirraway, but you might want to think this over...

I've not seen any evidence of wedgebert, BigJim, or Glom resorting to anything even remotely ad hominem, or misrepresenting your standpoint.
I have only seen an unwillingness on your part to address any of the points they are putting to yourself. It's a silly tactic to argue like this: =;

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif