article: Plug-in Hybrid

I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this other Sen. Kennedy story: Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has changed his mind related to off shore drilling." Jason

The scientists in Nevada disagree.

You have explained your postion clearly:

You want the benefit.

You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.

Brian Stell wrote in news:p5SNe.924$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

But have they come up with any alternative places? No. (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)

I suspect they too are being NIMBY.

Wrong,-in the best possible place.

Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.? I suspect not.

They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just like scientists in *every* other state were saying.

You can call it that but they would call it protecting their citizens.

I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting the benefit.

You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made that clear.

You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain is a good place to put nuclear waste.

If only science were always objective. For simple things it can be. But there will never be a scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion. Not a fact. For complex problems there will always be lots of apparently conflicting facts.

The scientists working for the federal government really want a place to dump the nuclear waste. They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion* that Yucca Mountain is safe.

The scientists working for the state of Nevada really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in their state. They looked at the facts and drew the conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.

The likely difference: who's backyard it is being dumped in.

No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's backyard.

And that is the major reason why we need to stop producing it.

ERm no, to my understanding, the objects were made purely on political reasons, no scientific based reasons made at all. I persoanlyl will take a nicely designed, built and manned nuclear storage facility in 'my back yard' any day. The only reasons given for why that facility is not good, is emotionally based, and scientifically unsound.

I worked at a nuclear reprocessing plant for a while. thats like a storage facility squared. lots of material comes in and out, and is processed, its not sealed, locked up and then kept in one place. The CND weirdo's still pickett every now and then, but its nothing very serious. As for whata i was doing at the plant - i was brought in to test potential safety inspection, and emergency shutdown robots. Part of a team that heavily analysed the data from sending vehicles around in hot rooms, seeing how they affected data, if it was possible to add layers and distance between human operators and maintainance people, and anything warm, or hot.

If you want to talk terrorist crap, there are MANY better targets out in the world today for gathering nuclear materials. for instance, in

2002, a lot of easily frightened nuclear and terrorist worriers panicked over a shipment of MOX pellets that went from Japan to sellafield. The ship was slow, and poorly armed. apart from 9mm sidearms for the armed members of the crew (two dozen or so) the ship carried two .50cal guns, one each fore and aft. That was it. A bunch of 'licker'd up rednecks ina boston whaler' could have hijacked the ship, if needed. It wasn't escorted.

As with terrorism, 90% of whats spread as 'dangers' and 'threast' from nuclear materials, is nothing more than plain old FUD.

Brian Stell wrote in news:_WmOe.85$A% snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Then they were not trying to solve the location problem,they just were NIMBY.No wonder they were ignored.

They certainly were not acting in the best interests of the Nation. Nor as scientists.

I live in FLORIDA;the geology/hydrology is totally wrong for it here. If it were geologically and hydrologically the best place,I'd WELCOME IT. Heck,I'd try to get a JOB there,and live within reasonable driving distance from it.

The best available in the CONUS.

NOBODY has shown otherwise. (all they say is "not here";NIMBY,=UNACCEPTABLE,it's gotta go somewhere.)

YOU are not "objective",except for your no-nuke philosophy.

Yes,it's necessary. It's certainly not good to stay with the status quo. It's here,we have to deal with it.

A pretty good decision.

Gee,think they were BIASED? (like you)

Yes,there is. The place where it's the safest,and least likely to affect anything.

AH,there's the TRUE drift of your objection;it's NUCLEAR,therefore unacceptable anywhere.You feel that having a single national repository would make muclear power more feasible.You are not concerned with the safety of the PRESENT nuclear wastes.You don't want any solution to safe storage of nuclear wastes. I suspect you WANT some disaster to happen so that it bolsters your anti- nuke beliefs.

Just as I suspected.Just another anti-nuke enviro-weenie.

Now you show your true colors.

PLONK.

You need to take your meds.