I had to write a small report about it.
The concept of a nuclear waste repository in the United States is a good one. Repositories have been operating successfully in Japan, France, Switzerland, and other nations.
Yucca Mountain was chosen because it had a lot of good characteristics for locating a repository - according to the government. It's also not very densely populated and far away from major population centers.
Transporting nuclear waste is dangerous, but keeping it stored in various different places isn't? Clinton's veto made no sense.
There are valid concerns over the repository. The rock is porous. Though it's worth noting this repository will be very deep underground and sealed off. A river runs by, which could transport the nuclear waste to other places. The volcano could also be a threat, but most likely will not.
The state of Nevada and all the people will always be opposed for obvious reasons.
They should do more research on the site and the safety IMO. If they can assure us of the safety, they should be allowed to build it. However, I'd also make it mandatory for them to monitor the waste and its impact on Yucca Mountain.
People may not like storing waste at Yucca Mountain, but they need to realize this waste has to be stored somewhere. There's probably going to be some problems anywhere we store it. Therefore we need to select the most safe site possible and do our best to make sure the repository there works effectively. |