I've been staying out of this discussion, but I would like to point out that I think
(Bolding Mine) would certainly qualify as "remotely ad hominem."
I think Wirraway is letting himself get drawn into a discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear waste, when his real issue is whether or not it's right for the federal government to force this on a state that wants no part of it.

I think you guys are certainly right that there's no real danger from the Yucca Mountain site, but the feds need to convince the people of Nevada to accept it, not just force it on them (which would tend to raise suspicions about their motives).

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

But not out of order. I specifically asked him to address five key points numerous times, and every time he ignored it. He refused to answer direct, pertinent questions. I don't think that then using the term "anti-nukyular" qualifies as harmful.

Which is what we're trying to tell Wirraway. But it's hopeless. He continually insists that there is a conspiracy against Nevada and ignores direct questions. A waste of our time to continue.

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

Well, I'd disagree about it being out of order, but that's just me.

Of the four points you raised (I say four because #1 and #4 are the same thing), I find the last one kind of interesting:

It seems like you're saying "We have to do this (Yucca Mountain) in spite of the activists' demands because we can't do what we should do (reprocess) . . . because of the activists' demands!"

If we're going to ignore the folks in Nevada like Wirraway who don't want a waste dump in their state and just do it anyway, why not ignore the folks around the country who don't want to reprocess and just do it anyway?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

The term 'anti-nukyular' is intended to be slightly derisery. But it isn't all that significant. Stop Cassini Wacko is a bit more significant. But the important thing about an ad hominem is that it is an argument based on a personal attack. We don't argue that nuclear power is good because anti-nukyular activists are stupid. That would be an ad hominem. We argue that nuclear power is good because of X, Y and Z and then say that anti-nukyular activists are stupid because they don't realise that. That is not technically an ad hominem although it is admittedly, not a symptom of truly civilised debate.

Reprocessing was stopped by presidential order. It sounds like you're trying to find consistency in the decisions of politicians. [-X

There aren't that many people opposed to reprocessing. It was a Presidential order from Jimmy Carter. If we had a President who wanted to reprocess, we could. But the reason that he issued the order was because of the environmentalists' demands. We should reprocess fuels. We don't for purely political reasons.

We're not totally ignoring the people in Nevada. But Yucca Mountain has been chosen because of its safety in storing nuclear wastes. There will always be those who are uninformed and opposed to it. But it wouldn't make sense to abandon the project on which so many billions have already been spent because of the irrational and hysterical fears of a small portion of the population.

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

Shall I quote it again?

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

That's kind of what I thought. But I want you to notice something in what you've said. First you said:

Just now, you said:

So, the primary reason for Yucca Mountain is for purely political reasons, which I think is what Wirraway suggested before people started accusing him of being a "conspiracy theorist."

The population of Nevada may be a small portion of the population of the US, but in a federal vs. state land-use issue like this, I think they've got some precedence. And you're lending credence to Wirraway's fears that his "small state" is being picked on.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

That's a very naive argument. Wirraway was saying that the location of the disposal facility was chosen because it had political advantages. BigJim was saying that the reason we (meaning you) need a disposal facility at all is because of the consequences of a different political decision.

Yes. There is a difference in the argument. Wirraway was saying that Yucca Mountain was chosen for political reasons; namely, that there is a conspiracy against Nevada. I am saying that the entire concept of having a nuclear repository is due to political reasons, but Yucca Mountain was still chosen purely scientifically. There is a major difference.

I don't think so. I've repeatedly said that Nevada and Yucca Mountain were chosen for scientific, not political, reasons. We can't allow a nuclear waste site to be put in a place which is less safe because of the irrational fears of the uninformed. Yucca was chosen for safety not only of the people of the rest of the US, but for those who live around it as well. That's why it costs three times what a manned Mars mission would: $58 billion.

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

I don't think Wirraway ever really claimed that, although some of his comments could be taken that way. Whether or not the federal gov't would try to push the waste dump onto an unwilling population in NY or CA if the "ideal site" had been found there is something we'll never know. The fact they are forcing it on the "ideal site" is not proof that the political location of the site had no effect on the decision to force it. (Boy, that's an awkward paragraph)

At any rate, the fact remains that they're pushing Yucca Mountain because they've made the decision to push for that instead of pushing for reproccessing, which by your own admission is scientifically superior. And why would they push for the scientifically inferior option, unless they considered it to be politically easier?

Would it still be politically easier if the site was in NY or CA? I don't know, but I think it's a valid question, and it ties in directly to Wirraway's concerns, doesn't it?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Quite true. Frankly, political undercurrent behind seemingly scientific decisions do not concern me. The purpose was to establish first that Yucca is not a threat to the population and second that it was chosen because it is the best place to put the facility, even if politicians can see other less scientific advantages to it.

Reprocessing with only solve the waste problem if the reprocessed fuel is used. If it's not going to be used, then you still have loads of material with no where to put it and you've spent a lot more on it. Therefore, to advocate reprocessing as a solution to the waste situation would be to advocate expansion of America's dwindling nuclear infrastructure. Such an advocation is politically unfavourable because of the unjust stigma attached to all things nuclear.

Maybe. Either way, it's irrelevant. When Wirraway joined this thread to declare in no uncertain terms his opposition to Yucca, our instinctive reaction was presume it was because of a misinformed idea that the facility would pose a threat to the population. It's becoming apparent that Wirraway doesn't feel that way, or at least, doesn't anymore and that his opposition stems from the idea that having a tip located not far from your city is not particularly nice. But it would have been easier if Wirraway had simply said that and then presented his political argument.

Perhaps, but it's an irrelevant question for two reasons. First, there are no sites in New York or California that are as useful and safe as Yucca. And second, Yucca is safe, as we've said, so Wirraway's fear of it is irrational.

There would be no reason to put the site in another site - Yucca Mountain is the safest one. While New York or California migt be politically opposed to nuclear waste sites in their states, it's irrelevant because no sites in New York or California are as safe as Yucca, so they would not be chosen. One of the reasons that Yucca Mountain was chosen was that waste stored there will not leak into groundwater. The same cannot be said for many other sites. Yucca is also in a sparsely populated desert region in a dry climate. It has many advantages that other nuclear waste sites did not - hence it was chosen. Its location in Nevada is irrelevant. If Yucca were somewhere else, and I would venture to say anywhere else, it would still have been chosen.

Here is a website on Yucca Mountain and some of te history on why it was chosen. There were possible sites in Washington state and Texas, too, hardly states which lack any political power - at least Texas, anyway. And although the Nuclear Waste Act said that:

Nevadans were still unhappy:

even though the Act and the $58 billion going into Yucca strongly protects their safety.

France, which gets more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear reactors, reprocesses its fuel:

France gets many advantages from its large nuclear power industry. It saves about $5.4 billion a year in not paying for oil or coal and exports $2.3 billion of electricity each year. It also puts no pollution or excess radiation into the atmoshpere, which is a bonus.

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

But it probably would concern you if you felt you were directly and negatively affected by the decision, as Wirraway and other Nevadans (rightly or wrongly) apparently do.

Agreed. And I should point out that my arguments may not actually be Wirraway's - I'm just giving my perception of the situation.

BigJim, I really think you don't understand where the Nevadans' opposition is coming from. Especially when you say things like:

Do you think that pointing out the fact that Nevada was chosen over two more politically powerful states is a persuasive argument that Nevada's lack of political power was not an issue?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

What I meant is that other states with more political power were initially under consideration. Whether Yucca was ultimately chosen politically or scientifically is your own opinion, but there are legitimate scientific reasons for using Yucca Mountain.

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

The question we have to ask Wirraway is whether or not it is fear or whether it is that he doesn't like the principle of it, nuclear or not.

I thought I'd mentioned it but I can't post the post in which I did.

This site.

Question: If Nevada passed some kind of referendum or law that specifically banned the use of it's land for nuclear waste dumping, what then? Would that be OK? Or would the feds ignore them and keep using Yucca Mt.?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

i think they already tried that musashi, a year or two ago. i remember them having a big deal about it with the federal government anyway, even if it wasn't that extreme. if i find it i'll post it.

__________________
None to speak of

Thanks man on the moon. I think that is the main crux of Wirraway's posts. Regardless of saftey, Nevada should have a right to say no thanks. Yucca Mt. may be the best place in all of the USA to put the stuff, but that does not obligate Nevada to accept it. Perhaps if each state had its own dump, they could deal with their own waste, and then nobody could really argue about where it is being dumped. (Untill you get into the county level, as is going on with landfills here in California)

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

here it is.

[edited to fix link]

__________________
None to speak of

If there's such a big deal about nuclear waste storage, why not just export it to a country that will either store it or reprocess it? Send it to France, they reprocess their waste. You might not even have to pay; they could keep what they extract from the waste as payment.

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

Canada seems to have a lot of land going to waste. :wink: (pun intended)

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

Actually, we may take it. No joke. We don't reprocess it, but we'd take your money to store it. The Canadian sheild is ideal. Solid granite without a large population to complain.

Plus if we ever did start reprocessing, we could sell it back to you... :P

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

HOORAY FOR FISSION!

Glad to see not everyone thinks that nuclear=evil
We had a situation here in oz where anti-nuke people actually picketed our one and only nuclear reactor (which is only used for medical and scientific purposes) TO KEEP WASTE FROM BEING TRANSPORTED TO A SAFE LOCATION! Does this seem like rational behavior to anyone?
These "enviromentalists" are stopping the devlopment of cleaner and safer nuclear energy both in my country and around the world.

So where do I sign up?

ps: If you want the U.S nuclear waste you will have to fight us for it! :x

__________________
there are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary code, and those that don't.

It has long been my contention that these anti-nukyular environmentalists aren't so much interested in saving the environment as they are in being regressive. They are anti-technology.

I would say that that is not entirely true for all anti-nuclear activists. Some would just like to see more advancement in alternative energy sources such as Solar, wind and hydroelectric power, which would leave little or no impact on the environment. Regardless of safety precautions, the fact still exists that power created by fossil fuels or nuclear fuel creates dangerous by-products. Not all enviromentalists are regressive nor are they misinformed.

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

Not all, clearly.

At current levels, the space it consumes as a major power source is in itself damaging.

Again, the space it consumes is damaging, even without emissions, although admittedly, wind can be both a blessing as well as a curse to the land.

The building of dams is actually quite damaging, although not in the usual sense in that it has no emissions. which would leave little or no impact on the environment.

It is a matter of fact that producing most of our power from renewables is not an option at the present time. We need either fossil fuels or nuclear and given the choice, I'd vote nuclear.

I agree about the damming of rivers, look what's going on in China. :-?

But I do think that solar and wind power is feasable on a small scale, and I especially want to see solar power developed better. Maybe we will get there one day. I do know of several people that are off the grid completely, granted they are not in an urban area, but they have been very successful in maintaining their power supply. Considering the amount my gas bill has gone up in the past year, and how it is going to go up again soon, I wish my roof was covered in solar panels, if only to ease my wallet a bit.

Nuclear power is the best alternative, at the moment, for large power generation, no argument from me.

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

I remember many months ago a "news" story came out about all the supposed proposed routes that the waste would take on its way to Nevada and how many schools, hospitals, etc. it would go past. The story was designed to raise fear and wasn't even completely correct. It offered a website one could go to to check how close waste came to you. Sadly I don't still have that link. But for example, in Columbus, OH where I am currently, downtown is centered on Interstates 71 and 70 and mostly surrounded by an outerbelt Interstate 270 which you can see here. These supposed routes took waste right through downtown on 71 and 70 which would never happen. 270 is designated as a hazmat route. Any vehicle unless picking up or dropping off within 270 must go around. This doesn't avoid everything but does avoid a majority of the population.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Here is the crux of the problem with many environmentalists - they REFUSE to see the common sense compromise positions. Ocasey3 is exactly right. I think the majority of people would agree that solar power and wind power would be nice, but its not feasible for large scale energy production at this time. So what do we do in the meantime? If the environmentalists get their way we get rid of all nuclear plants, we eliminate all fossil fuels (to protect against the global warming that isn't happening) and where does that leave the economy? Most of them don't care!

That's what ticks me off. Right now we need fossil fuels. Period. But do you think these activitsts do anything but throw a tantrum if we dare to suggest drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico? Right now we could probably reduce our need for fossil fuels by expanding our use of nuclear power. But we can't even launch a nuclear powered probe to Saturn without the activists throwing yet another tantrum.

They want solar NOW! They want Wind power NOW! They don't care what it does to the economy - and thereby jobs - if we conform to their demands. They don't care if the technology isn't ready yet. Make it ready yesterday they demand. Its all because of the greedy corporations they say. Doesn't it occur to them that since the corporations are in business for profit (which is where the employees pay comes from incidentally) - they will be developing these alternatives WHEN it becomes possible for them to do it profitably. But PROFIT is another evil word in the environmentalist dictionary.

I would say that within 100 years some of these alternatives they like should be more feasible. Common sense says we should be doing what it takes to bridge that gap.