Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Depository

Lurch1982 · 11-24-2003, 08:50 PM

Yes? No? Have no clue what it is?

11-24-2003, 10:54 PM

Well, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna guess it's a nuke dump on Yucca Mt.

Why, is it leaking or something?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Link47 · 11-24-2003, 10:56 PM

Heard of it, don't know much about it.

Lurch1982 · 11-24-2003, 11:18 PM

Its the site of the future national nuclear waste depository. After 20 years of research, the Department of energy decided that this site in Nevada (about 90 miles outside of Vegas, right around the Nuclear testing areas) was the best place to make a geological storage facility. They bury radioactive waste in the mountainside. The issue was vetoed a few times by Clinton on the basis of transportation issues (the waste is going across railways and highways) and was revived by the bush administration. Many environmental groups and many geologists are saying this is an unsound site since its near an active volcano (that hasn't erupted in over one million years, but still), over a watertable, the rock is pourous, and it sits on an active faultline (earthquakes). A native american group filed suit against the federal government since the site is technically on their land, but the government never addressed that fully, and the entire state of Nevada is up in arms over it. Practically everyone in the state is against it, and the governor vetoed the placement when it was passed this year...only to be overridden by congress. So, the site is still years away from construction, and there are allegations taht environmental requirements were actually lowered to set this as the site. Interesting issue.

11-24-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote:

active volcano (that hasn't erupted in over one million years

Wait a minute...last time I checked, that's an inactive volcano. Not dormant, but inactive.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Lurch1982 · 11-25-2003, 02:01 AM

Not sure, but i think there may be non-eruption activity. I just glaced over some stuff extremely quick.

Lurch1982 · 11-26-2003, 01:31 PM

Eh, volcano was last active about 10,000 years ago. There's still activity, but there's hella more seismic activity (620+ earthquakes during the study period).

Personally, I think its a terrible idea. The site isn't sound, and transporting nuclear waste on highways and trains doesn't seem very safe to me.

DARTH BOWSER · 11-26-2003, 03:12 PM

Earthquake activity would definately not be the best thing to throw nuclear waste into.

11-26-2003, 06:03 PM

Earthquakes & nukes? Yeah, definitely bad idea.
While they're at it, why don't they just juggle some nitroglycerin on a trampoline?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

11-26-2003, 09:26 PM

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.

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.

DARTH BOWSER · 11-29-2003, 04:10 AM

I know I sure as hell wouldn't want that **** sitting in my backyard if it was in an area like that.

imported_Parrakarry · 11-29-2003, 10:41 AM

Give it to the Iraqi. Tell them it's edible.

Link47 · 11-29-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by -Parrakarry-:
Give it to the Iraqi. Tell them it's edible.

Better yet, bury it there, and then a week later dig it back up and say it's WMD's.

11-24-2003, 08:50 PM	#1
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,156 Thanks: 119 Thanked 213 Times in 128 Posts Points: 27,975.64 Bank: 179,738.82 Total Points: 207,714.46 Donate	Yes? No? Have no clue what it is?

11-24-2003, 10:54 PM	#2
CaptHayfever Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	Well, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna guess it's a nuke dump on Yucca Mt. Why, is it leaking or something? And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

11-24-2003, 10:56 PM	#3
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 25,612.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 26,112.00 Donate	Heard of it, don't know much about it.

11-24-2003, 11:18 PM	#4
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,156 Thanks: 119 Thanked 213 Times in 128 Posts Points: 27,975.64 Bank: 179,738.82 Total Points: 207,714.46 Donate	Its the site of the future national nuclear waste depository. After 20 years of research, the Department of energy decided that this site in Nevada (about 90 miles outside of Vegas, right around the Nuclear testing areas) was the best place to make a geological storage facility. They bury radioactive waste in the mountainside. The issue was vetoed a few times by Clinton on the basis of transportation issues (the waste is going across railways and highways) and was revived by the bush administration. Many environmental groups and many geologists are saying this is an unsound site since its near an active volcano (that hasn't erupted in over one million years, but still), over a watertable, the rock is pourous, and it sits on an active faultline (earthquakes). A native american group filed suit against the federal government since the site is technically on their land, but the government never addressed that fully, and the entire state of Nevada is up in arms over it. Practically everyone in the state is against it, and the governor vetoed the placement when it was passed this year...only to be overridden by congress. So, the site is still years away from construction, and there are allegations taht environmental requirements were actually lowered to set this as the site. Interesting issue.

11-25-2003, 02:01 AM	#6
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,156 Thanks: 119 Thanked 213 Times in 128 Posts Points: 27,975.64 Bank: 179,738.82 Total Points: 207,714.46 Donate	Not sure, but i think there may be non-eruption activity. I just glaced over some stuff extremely quick.

11-26-2003, 01:31 PM	#7
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,156 Thanks: 119 Thanked 213 Times in 128 Posts Points: 27,975.64 Bank: 179,738.82 Total Points: 207,714.46 Donate	Eh, volcano was last active about 10,000 years ago. There's still activity, but there's hella more seismic activity (620+ earthquakes during the study period). Personally, I think its a terrible idea. The site isn't sound, and transporting nuclear waste on highways and trains doesn't seem very safe to me.

11-26-2003, 03:12 PM	#8
DARTH BOWSER Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Swartz Creek, Michigan, USA Posts: 5,731 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 303.00 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 303.00 Donate	Earthquake activity would definately not be the best thing to throw nuclear waste into.

11-26-2003, 06:03 PM	#9
CaptHayfever Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	Earthquakes & nukes? Yeah, definitely bad idea. While they're at it, why don't they just juggle some nitroglycerin on a trampoline? And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

11-26-2003, 09:26 PM	#10
Mushroommarioman Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	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.

11-28-2003, 11:34 PM	#11
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,156 Thanks: 119 Thanked 213 Times in 128 Posts Points: 27,975.64 Bank: 179,738.82 Total Points: 207,714.46 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.

11-29-2003, 04:10 AM	#12
DARTH BOWSER Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Swartz Creek, Michigan, USA Posts: 5,731 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 303.00 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 303.00 Donate	I know I sure as hell wouldn't want that **** sitting in my backyard if it was in an area like that.

11-29-2003, 10:41 AM	#13
imported_Parrakarry 1337 H4xx0rzerz Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Mars. I own it. Period. Posts: 9,529 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 1,398.50 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 1,398.50 Donate	Give it to the Iraqi. Tell them it's edible.