Video Game Forums - View Single Post

Lurch1982 · 11-28-2003, 11:34 PM

A lot of Western European countries use a form of recycling with used fuel rods. We don't use that here because it produces a form of plutonium which can be used to make a nuclear weapon (proliferation issues).

Yucca is more of a political decision than scientific. Its over two fault lines and in an area with about 30 other ones. Nevada ranks in the top 5 or so in Earthquake activity. Something about earthquakes and a nuclear storage center doesn't sound safe at all. That doesn't even get into the fact that Yucca's directly over a watertable that services an agricultural area that sells dairy products to LA. One leak and you contaminate a massive population through the beef and milk produced from the area. Throw into the mix that the rock is extremely pourous, and the temps inside of the mountain exceed those that the storage containers were tested in. And not to mention the issues with transportation (transportation casks were crash tested at 35MPHs, etc), and safety concerns. Oh, and Nevada is in the middle of nowhere and has no political importance. Its not like they're using a suitable source like those present in the appalachins on the east coast...they're using a source that they had to LOWER the standards for a repository and had to basically edit all of the requirements in order to make it acceptable.

Clinton's veto makes sense considering that they wanted to move the waste to an interm dump. The main logic was that odds were that the waste would never leave the "temporary" dump.

Yucca isn't the safest or the best place. Its a political decision that everyone except the people in Nevada could live with.

I think we should look into newer techs with recycling. The government needs to provide more incentives to the industry to develop new methods of dealing with waste.

11-28-2003, 11:34 PM	#11
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,150 Thanks: 119 Thanked 204 Times in 126 Posts Points: 27,589.51 Bank: 172,759.35 Total Points: 200,348.86 Donate	A lot of Western European countries use a form of recycling with used fuel rods. We don't use that here because it produces a form of plutonium which can be used to make a nuclear weapon (proliferation issues). Yucca is more of a political decision than scientific. Its over two fault lines and in an area with about 30 other ones. Nevada ranks in the top 5 or so in Earthquake activity. Something about earthquakes and a nuclear storage center doesn't sound safe at all. That doesn't even get into the fact that Yucca's directly over a watertable that services an agricultural area that sells dairy products to LA. One leak and you contaminate a massive population through the beef and milk produced from the area. Throw into the mix that the rock is extremely pourous, and the temps inside of the mountain exceed those that the storage containers were tested in. And not to mention the issues with transportation (transportation casks were crash tested at 35MPHs, etc), and safety concerns. Oh, and Nevada is in the middle of nowhere and has no political importance. Its not like they're using a suitable source like those present in the appalachins on the east coast...they're using a source that they had to LOWER the standards for a repository and had to basically edit all of the requirements in order to make it acceptable. Clinton's veto makes sense considering that they wanted to move the waste to an interm dump. The main logic was that odds were that the waste would never leave the "temporary" dump. Yucca isn't the safest or the best place. Its a political decision that everyone except the people in Nevada could live with. I think we should look into newer techs with recycling. The government needs to provide more incentives to the industry to develop new methods of dealing with waste.