Re: OT: 2006 US Elections

Snit wrote: 
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
xFNPe.5345$2_.3514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/26/05 4:35 PM:


Snit wrote:

"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
cxMPe.3481$7F.3347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/26/05 3:18 PM:



Snit wrote:


"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
vwLPe.5432$N1.2182@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/26/05 2:09 PM:




But coal was falling out of favor, and those that are burning it, are
not usually using southern Illinois coal because it is high sulfur.
Hence the clean burn technologies.  Our local university is a real
leader in this technology and developed much of the techniques and
equipment designs.  They have also shown, and are using in new
construction, that coal ash can be used in concrete.



IMO, Nuclear fission is the answer here. Very safe (there been, what, 3
major accidents? All due to poor maintanence.), relatively low pollution
(really, there's a very small amount of highly dangerous material--we
would take hundreds of years to fill Yucca mountain, with current
technology), and a plentiful supply of fuel. It just requires batteries
and such for mobile uses.



Why send the stuff to Yucca mountain at all - the local folks neither use
nuclear energy as a source nor want the waste transported nor stored near
them.


What locals? It's in the middle of the fucking desert. 


Alrighty - time for a little lesson for ya'

Yucca mountain is less than 100 miles from Las Vegas.

Actually, it's more than 100 miles, 


I look forward to your support of this claim:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/dossier/nuke/
-----
The Energy Department for years has said it would rely mainly on trains, as
opposed to trucks, to haul 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from the
nation's nuclear power reactors to a proposed underground nuclear dump at
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
-----

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8476
-----
The radiation exposure issue has threatened to cripple the government's
plans to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste -- mostly used reactor
fuel rods now at commercial power plants -- beneath a volcanic ridge at
Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 90 miles from Las Vegas.
-----

Most sources list it as 90 miles or "about 100 miles" away from Las Vegas -
and when you consider the growth the city is experiencing - growing quickly
in all directions (except where mountains do not permit it) it is quite
accurate to say it is under 100 miles.  For that matter I would have to dig
up a map to see if they mean what is technically Las Vegas or if they mean
"Paradise Township", which is much larger but often simply considered "Las
Vegas" (Las Vegas technically is very small - but when I lived in Paradise
Township I *never* received any mail listed as such... it all came to "Las
Vegas").  I suppose I could have said "about 100 miles", and that would be
close enough... but to call it more than 100 miles is simply inaccurate.


and this type of waste couldn't do anything but seep into the water table.
Even then, that's extremely unlikely for thousands of years. They're mostly
concerned with catastrophes, such that people would forget about it.



There are multiple professional opinions on this...

Las Vegas, of course,
is a major tourist attraction of not only folks in the US, but people around
the world.  Even if there was no real danger (which, of course, there is)
the mere fact that storing the waste there would cause bad publicity might
hurt the local economy.


What happened to the idea of state rights?


The federal government bought the land. 


So?  Does that mean you believe it is ok for your next door neighbor to
store nuclear waste in his basement?  How about transporting it... ?


It is his right to do so. Just as it's my right to demand reparations
when it impacts my property.



Well, then, we know where to send it all.  :)




And why bury nuclear waste in a mountain range with over 30 faults in or
near
the site they plan to use?


Why not? It's made of rock that is very sturdy--and it's very dry.


And it has been for at least 10,000 years. But not before that. Oops. 

More like ~30,000 years. Considering the half-life of the concerned
material, and the type of rock it'll be contained in... this is not
really a concern.


To you - but chances are you would not like it to be buried near you... 
It hasn't bothered me for the last 18 years, why would it now?


And who cares if the earthquake hits a relatively dry area? 

Earthquakes are not the primary cause of concern. Water damage is. This
area is less active than most areas, and is much drier than the
alternatives.



The water table there is abnormally low, and rainfull isn't as much of an
issue there as it is in other sites. Water damage is much more likely than
seismic damage.


And do you think you can accurately predict where the water table will be in
10,000 years? 

The geologists think they can. They've been spending the last 30-odd
years checking the site out.



What other site in the continental US has so many seismic faults?


Pick a site.


Er? Ok... Washington DC, White house: President's bedroom. :) 

Is less safe than yucca mountain. By far. You can't really pick any site
on the east coast. You also need to put it inside a relatively stable
mountain, where there's little rain and low population density. Nevada,
and Arizona are really the only two states that make sense.



If those are the only places that make sense, why do you not care if your
neighbor stores it in his basement?
Well, my neighbor doesn't HAVE a basement, and this site is particularly poor for long-term storage (Extremly wet, no solid locations for storage, with seismic dangers on-par with that near Yucca mountain). Yucca mountain, on the other hand. would be quite safe. I honestly don't see why the people near there have a problem with it.
.

Loading