Dear Ed,
You seem to dissaprove of nucular power. Are you forgetting, or did you never know, that your frends in France survive off numular power?
We, the USA, the greatest naiton on earth, have the capability to provide nucular power to the citizenry, but because of left wing environmental wackos, such as yourself, we are banned from doing it.
The US navy have been floating around for decades on nucular power, it is safe. Even the great desaster at Chernobyl has been down played in recent years. Need I remind you? More people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedys car than in US nucular reactor accidents.
The shame is we are letting the geeks run the country, maybe when it hurts in the pocket book we will finally be smart enough to shut them up and get on with life.
Subadar

Utah has already paid the price and taken one for the team. The nuclear testing that has ended up taking many lives among the downwinders was supposedly safe according to all the experts when those tests were conducted. These people are not liberal and they are not environmentalists, but they know full well what it means to be on the recieving end of "safe" nuclear fallout.

Utah is increaingly being pressured to take all the nation's nuclear waste. We all know that once the waste reaches the PFS site it will never leave.

Utah's site most often mentioned for a nuclear plant is Lake Powell, the water supply for Las Vegas, Phoenix and Southern California. If we take this as a "war on terror" issue alone, doesn't that create the ultimate "perfect storm" terrorist target? You could eliminate those cities in one blow without actually touching them by removing their water supply. Personally, I don't think cheaper power for lights in Vegas is worth the risk.

Nuclear power is one of the alternative fuel choices available to use and we should not ignore it. It's cheap and plentiful and I think it gets safer every day we have more experience using it.

Think about how far we've come technologically in the 30 years since Chernobyl. Heck, my iPod probably has more computing horsepower than a 30 year old nuke plant. We've gotten a lot smarter and have more options available to us for processing and disposal of nuclear waste. I think it's a shame we don't go after it.

Fear has way too much power over us and our lives. Risk is a part of life and sometimes the benefits outweigh the possible consequences.

Ask yourself this: if spent nuclear fuel storage is so safe, why do the other 48 states want all of their waste moved to either Nevada or Utah?

Almost all the nuclear energy generated in the US is generated east of the Mississippi (about 85%). Yet there's no appropriate place nearby to store the waste?

Y'know, I think the best answer is not to store it in ANY state. Perhaps, though, in some place jointly owned by all the states; Washington DC comes to mind.

What is this wonderful nucular power that Subadar speaks of? It sounds much better than nuclear power. I think we should really look into that. All this time I thought the president was really just mispronouncing "nuclear."

And why is it that Teddy Kennedy's driving seems to be the only zinger the right-wing wackos are ever able to pull out of the old zinger closet? Seriously, what was that? 1969? Have the Democrats really done nothing to upset you since then?

Let's look at later incident, say, April 1986. That's when the little incident happened at Chernobyl. Sheep in Scotland remain affected by the radiation to this day. That doesn't sound safe to me.

French nuke waste problems:

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/05/31/ap2782445.html

This is for Subadar, who thinks storing waste with current technology is safe. The French Government cites the US way of handling storage as justification for it's own burying of waste in leaky storage facilities.

You have to remember that we don't control the world. U.S. nuclear waste is a problem, but other nations just sweep it under the carpet. The Soviets have been dumping waste into the Sea of Japan for decades and have destroyed vast fishing grounds. It's a losing situation no matter where you store spent fuel because all methods are really inadequate. Yucca Mountain appears to be at least a better way to handle it for now.

I don't like the fact that several thousand truckloads of the stuff would be passing through southern Utah on the I-15 on its way to Yucca Mountain. Even if PFS doesn't happen, much of the transportation to Nevada will directly effect those of us in Utah. At the very least, the truck designs that have been unveiled will block both lanes of the highway, tying up traffic. The designers failed to take into account that some states don't have big multi-lane interstates everywhere. Also, I'm not so confident about the trucking after the incident a few months ago with the radioactive water from San Onofre. Apparently no one took into account that altitude change means pressure change so the top popped off the truck and radioactive water leaked at the Parowan truck stop. Fortunately, it was low level waste and all they had to do was bulldoze it away, but the point is I don't think southern Utah is equipped to deal with accidents involving high level nuclear waste. And Yucca opening will mean it's a possibility we may have to deal with. According to this route map, 26,000 to 52,000 shipments by truck would be passing down the I-15 corridor through Iron and Washington Counties on the way to Yucca Mountain.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/maps2002/index.htm

I just can't believe that there could be that many shipments without a single accident.

Considering all the fear of terrorism these days, doesn't anyone think that thousands of minimally protected trucks full of nuclear waste on our interstate highways just MIGHT be a tempting terrorist target? If the point of terrorism is to cause chaos, it would take just one incident to create a huge nationwide panic and interrupt the entire storage and transportation program.