# Nuclear Power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035 "2008-10-29T02:56:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/241 "2009-02-26T23:13:23Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > People aren’t misquoting me. People ARE making up things and then attributing them to me. I’m not going to try to back up what I did not say. I will point it out whenever someone claims I said something that I did not say. I will point it out whenever someone attributes a position on an issue to me that I have never taken. Nobody said you should back up what you didn’t say. They’re just asking you to address the points they are making. Do so in a manner that is more clear and concise than, “we don’t purposely store that waste in the atmosphere”. When you say something that nonsensical, it leaves people to draw their own conclusions about your stance. Based on your last post, you’re clearly in way over your head. All people purchase, on the open market, power produced by a nuclear power plant. It doesn’t matter where it is geographically located. The power plant outside of Augusta Georgia is owned and run by the Southern Company, not the State of Georgia. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/242 "2009-02-26T23:30:01Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > People aren’t misquoting me. People ARE making up things and then attributing them to me. I’m not going to try to back up what I did not say. I will point it out whenever someone claims I said something that I did not say. I will point it out whenever someone attributes a position on an issue to me that I have never taken. Well… Tell us EXACTLY what about nuclear power YOU don’t like and we will tell why its mostly a crock. Or are you here to just snipe at other peoples positions without actually taking one of your own ? Thats fine for entertainment value, but it doesnt prove anything either. To be honest, what I am getting from you is that you are against nuclear “just because”… Is it like, duuude, giving off badddd vibes or sumptin? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/243 "2009-02-26T23:38:18Z")
Ok…as promised Bo I’ll address your earlier comments about Yucca Mountain. First off, here is what you said: > [@](#): > > Also, we don’t want your waste here in Nevada. The casks designed to hold the waste are only good for 100 years, and they are not infallible. Actually, isn’t what your own cite actually says. Here is what your cite had to say about it: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - The Energy Department predicts up to 60 uncontrolled nuclear reactions would take place inside nuclear waste casks stored at power plant sites should the casks corrode, according to a department study obtained by Nevada officials. They are saying here that 60 uncontrolled reactions would take place inside the casks ‘should the casks corrode’. This is extrapolated (in theory) from the CURRENT storage methods and it’s effect on the casks as they are today…not as they would be if stored in a, you know, intentionally created storage facility. > [@](#): > > “We were amazed to learn, after finally obtaining some of the pertinent documents from the Department of Energy through the Freedom of Information Act, that DOE’s own studies anticipate that, if the repository operates as is now planned, up to 60 nuclear criticalities may plausibly occur inside the mountain, and that (the) conditional probability of occurrence may be greater than one in 1,000 per year,” Bob Loux, executive director of the state’s Agency for Nuclear Projects wrote to board Chairman Michael Corradini. This is again essentially extrapolating data from the casks used today (which are meant for TEMPORARY storage btw) to what will be used at Yucca Mountain…it’s an apples to bananas comparison. While I don’t have the time (or the inclination) to dig through the myriad NRC sites showing all of this, I did find [this](http://www.plentymag.com/ask/2008/07/what_is_dry_cask_nuclear_waste.php) article that touches on this issue. > [@](#): > > A. Right now, there are two methods of storing nuclear waste. One involves storing spent (toxic) fuel at the bottom of large concrete steel-lined pools while it cools—a process that takes anywhere from one to five years. The other method is dry cask storage, which involves storing cooled fuel in large, heavy steel cylinders that sit above ground and provide leak-tight containment. > > The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that both methods are safe and effective for temporary nuclear waste storage, according to Scott Burnell, NRC spokesperson. But the key word here is “temporary.” Though the dry casks can last for decades, the more than 130 nuclear waste storage sites spread across 39 states were never meant to provide permanent storage. That’s where Yucca Mountain comes in. Nuclear waste storage in Yucca would essentially use the same type of casks mentioned above—except larger and designed to last for thousands of years. Another key difference is that the casks would literally be stored under the mountain—about a thousand feet deep. Plus, nobody lives on Yucca Mountain, points out the Department of Energy, which makes storing the waste there a lot safer than sprinkling it across the countryside. > > Of course, there are drawbacks to using Yucca Mountain for storage. Many advocacy groups are worried that it’s not safe to transport nuclear waste across 43 states, that the casks aren’t durable, and that because Yucca Mountain falls along several fault lines it could prove an unstable storage place. “The idea of geologic disposal is that the waste is supposed to stay put,” says Steve Frishman of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. Frishman advocates above-ground dry cask storage instead, saying that it would provide a reasonable level of safety until the U.S. can figure out how to properly dispose of the waste. Burnell agrees, saying that “dry cask storage is considered safe and acceptable today, and the question of whether Yucca Moutain is safe and acceptable hasn’t been answered.” > > But since dry cask storage is temporary, the government will have to act eventually. The only silver lining in this nuclear mess is that constant bickering over Yucca may have prompted the government to consider whether a different path altogether should be considered—one that could involve recycling nuclear waste, says Burnell. For now, the government seems intent on practicing its infamous “wait and see” metho If anyone IS so inclined the NCR has a ton of sites on this. For some odd reason they are broken up into small, bite sized pages, so you really have to be willing to slog through multiple web pages to get the big picture. As for the transport issue, again, this stuff has been tested over and over (and over and over…) again. No, if you ask the scientists doing the testing (since the 80’s…Yucca Mountain has been under consideration and evaluation since friggin 1978 for gawds sake!) they won’t tell you that it’s 100% safe…but then again, no scientist (or engineer) is EVER going to give you that kind of answer so you are simply using their own prejudices against them, so to speak. [Here](http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml) is an additional site that has a ton of links on it describing Yucca Mountain in detail…it’s sort of DOE’s FAQ page on the project. Again, it’s a bit of a slog since you will have to go several links deep to get to any real meat. [Here](http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/design.html) is a brief conceptual design page from the NRC. [Here](http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html) is a brief description by the NRC of dry cask storage (which, ramped up, is what they will be using at Yucca Mountain…or what they WOULD be using if the project ever got off the ground, which looks doubtful to me. Sometimes ignorance really does win the day and looks like Bo/Gonzo et al are winning this fight). [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage) has a better article on dry cask storage with some additional links and a nice picture…we aren’t exactly talking about wooden casks with iron hoops here. Also, the Wiki page I linked to earlier has some good info on it as well. As always I never know just how much detail to throw into one of these posts during the infrequent times when my natural laziness is superseded by a request for data on something. My feeling at this point is that Bo is unreachable, so I’m not willing to expend TOO much effort on him…but if anyone else really wants to know some stuff about Yucca let me know. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/244 "2009-02-26T23:49:11Z")
I can hear the yawns, but I thought I’d include [this](http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/why/index.shtml) for anyone interested. It’s 2 or 3 links deep from the DOE’s FAQ site I linked too in my previous post: > [@](#): > > Why Yucca Mountain? > > Scientists have long considered Yucca Mountain a promising site for a repository due to the area’s > > ``` > * dry climate > * remoteness > * restricted access > * stable geology > * deep water table > * and closed water basin. > > ``` > > Yucca Mountain is located in Nye County, Nevada, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, on the western edge of the Nevada Test Site. The Nevada Test Site has hosted numerous nuclear-related projects for decades. > > Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987 and directed the U.S. Department of Energy to study only one site: Yucca Mountain. > > Since then, hundreds of scientists have conducted studies there. The mountain is one of the most thoroughly researched sites in the world. > > Dry Climate > > Yucca Mountain is in the desert southwest. Like any desert, it has a dry climate, receiving less than 7.5 inches of precipitation on average per year. Most of that precipitation runs off the mountain or evaporates. Only about 5% would ever reach repository depth. On average, the water moves only a half an inch per year through the rock. > > Yucca Mountain’s dry climate is an important feature because water is the primary way by which radioactive material could move from a repository. > > Remote Location > > Yucca Mountain is located at the edge of the Nevada Test Site where more than 900 nuclear weapons tests have been conducted. With approximately 1,375 square miles, this site is surrounded by thousands of additional acres of land withdrawn from the public domain for use as a protected wildlife range and for a military gunnery range, creating an unpopulated land area comprising some 5,470 square miles. > > The U.S. Air Force Nevada Test and Training Range (formerly called the Nellis Air Force Range) — with its restricted airspace and defensive capabilities — surrounds the Yucca Mountain area on three sides. > > No one lives at Yucca Mountain. The nearest population lives about 15 miles away in the Amargosa Valley. > > Restricted Access > > By being in the proximity of the Nevada Test Site and the Air Force range, Yucca Mountain’s air space is restricted and a highly trained security force is already in place. > > There are no known natural resources of commercial value at Yucca Mountain (such as precious metals, minerals, oil, etc.). > > In addition, the repository itself would safeguard radioactive materials from acts of terrorism or sabotage. It is highly unlikely that any attack at the surface could affect the waste 1,000 feet underground. > > Stable Geology > Photo of precariously balanced rocks. These untoppled rock formations near Yucca Mountain suggest little ground movement in the area for many millennia. > > These untoppled rock formations near Yucca Mountain suggest little ground movement in the area for many millennia. > > Yucca Mountain has changed little over the last several million years. Extensive scientific studies of potential natural hazards at the site show it is highly unlikely that volcanoes, erosion, or other geologic processes and events would disrupt a repository at Yucca Mountain. > > In addition, by locating the repository in solid rock about 1,000 feet under the surface and on average 1,000 feet above the water table, the waste would be protected from the impacts of earthquakes. Damaging ground movement is the most intense at the earth’s surface and decreases with the depth underground. > > Deep Water Table > > The repository will be located in solid rock about 1,000 feet under the surface and on average about 1,000 feet above the water table. Our studies show that although the water table has fluctuated in wetter climates, it has never risen to the level of the repository. > > Closed Water Basin > > Yucca Mountain is located in a closed basin, which is an area completely surrounded by higher land. > > The mountainous terrain enclosing the basin causes the groundwater to drain inward toward the lower elevations. Therefore, the groundwater does not move uphill beyond the boundaries of the basin, all of which are well defined and understood by geologists. > > Water that flows underneath Yucca Mountain flows under Amargosa Valley, where it combines with groundwater from other areas. A small amount of this groundwater could eventually flow underground into Death Valley. > > The closed basin prevents the groundwater under Yucca Mountain from flowing into the aquifer systems of any major population centers such as Las Vegas or Pahrump. In addition, the groundwater in this basin does not flow into any aboveground rivers or oceans. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/245 "2009-02-27T00:21:00Z")
Because you folks keep deliberately posting words which turn up in my daily search, I will point out that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to how much radioactive material ends up in the atmosphere from coal combustion, for a variety of reasons I could write a paper on (and have) but which I will summarize: much of the radioactive material which is easily oxidized ends up in the coal ash, which is either landfilled or else made into concrete. This would include things such as thorium and uranium. Radioactive material released from coal plants is generally radon. And note as well that radioactive materials entrained in the fly ash can release radon over time - the USGS says that 10% of indoor radon in concrete buildings comes from the rock and materials in the concrete. I’ll further quote the USGS and post: > [@](#): > > The radiation hazard from airborne emissions of coal-fired power plants was evaluated in a series of studies conducted from 1975–1985. These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less. Components of the radiation environment that impact the U.S. population are illustrated in figure 4. Natural sources account for the majority (82 percent) of radiation. Man-made sources of radiation are dominated by medical X-rays (11 percent). On this plot, the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose. For all that, I still think it’s possible nuclear plants emit less radiation overall than coal. All this says is that it’s a very small amount in both cases. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/246 "2009-02-27T00:46:28Z")
Pahrump as a " major" population center…now THATS funny 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/247 "2009-02-27T01:18:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Perhaps someone from California wouldn’t be as dense as you… You know better than this. No personal insults in GD. Aim for the post, not the poster. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/248 "2009-02-27T01:28:23Z")
You are of course right…my apologies. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/249 "2009-02-27T02:22:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well hell…there you go! We can all get behind such and attitude, surly. I mean, I simply buy the gas in my car and the power in my house…that it may contribute to Global Warming is no skin off MY nose. Apples and bananas. Nuclear waste stored in Alabama doesn’t affect me. Global warming affects everyone on the planet. Not your best analogy. > [@](#): > > And of course, the fact that Nevada is a state in the union doesn’t mean you actually have any obligations to said union, to be sure. No, it doesn’t. Not in this instance. There was no agreement made that “if the country builds the dam, you will accept nuclear waste”. Just because we are a part of the union doesn’t mean we have to be the garbage dump. You keep arguing that we are obligated in some manner, and that simply isn’t true. Nevada doesn’t owe the rest of the country anything with regards to nuclear waste, any more than Ohio does, or Wyoming. > [@](#): > > I’m sure that your attitude will fly about as well as your other arguments have thus far… > > -XT My attitude is flying quite well, thank you. I mean, as you pointed out, at the moment it looks a lot like my side is winning this debate. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/250 "2009-02-27T02:36:39Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Nobody said you should back up what you didn’t say. They’re just asking you to address the points they are making. Do so in a manner that is more clear and concise than, “we don’t purposely store that waste in the atmosphere”. When you say something that nonsensical, it leaves people to draw their own conclusions about your stance. I said that because **Senor Beef** asked > [@Senor Beef](#): > > How do you feel about all the radioactive waste generated by coal plants (they have plenty, there are radioactive elements within the coal) **being stored all over the atmosphere**? We don’t store it there. There is no plan to store it there. It is there, but not because we chose the atmosphere as a storage place. My reply was not nonsensical; it was a refutation of the terminology used by Senor Beef, and pointed out that the intent to store waste in the atmosphere does not, to my knowledge, exist. > [@](#): > > Based on your last post, you’re clearly in way over your head. All people purchase, on the open market, power produced by a nuclear power plant. It doesn’t matter where it is geographically located. The power plant outside of Augusta Georgia is owned and run by the Southern Company, not the State of Georgia. I’m fine with the Southern Company storing the waste on their own facility. Just like they do now. If the citizens of Georgia don’t want the nuclear waste, they should not have allowed the nuclear power plant to be built in their state. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/251 "2009-02-27T02:43:07Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’m fine with the Southern Company storing the waste on their own facility. Just like they do now. If the citizens of Georgia don’t want the nuclear waste, they should not have allowed the nuclear power plant to be built in their state. And if the citizens of Nevada don’t want Nuclear waste, they shouldn’t use power produced by nuclear power plants. Location is less relevant than use. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/252 "2009-02-27T02:50:09Z")
> [@](#): > > We don’t store it there. There is no plan to store it there. It is there, but not because we chose the atmosphere as a storage place. My reply was not nonsensical; it was a refutation of the terminology used by Senor Beef, and pointed out that the intent to store waste in the atmosphere does not, to my knowledge, exist. We do store it there, and we did choose to store it there. You seem to be confused by the fact that it would be much more expensive to store it anywhere else, but we could have routed the exhaust into huge underground tanks or the like. We chose not to do that, because it cost a fortune, but we did make that choice. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/253 "2009-02-27T02:52:46Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > And if the citizens of Nevada don’t want Nuclear waste, they shouldn’t use power produced by nuclear power plants. Location is less relevant than use. This probably the most compelling argument I’ve yet seen in this thread for why Nevada should accept nuclear waste, but it’s hardly convincing. At best, you might have a decent point if you were arguing that we should accept 10-15% of the waste from the Palo Verde plant. Unfortunately, what’s being argued is that Nevada should accept 100% of the waste from every nuclear power plant in operation, including any new ones that might be built in the future. Sorry, but we don’t want it. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/254 "2009-02-27T02:59:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This probably the most compelling argument I’ve yet seen in this thread for why Nevada should accept nuclear waste, but it’s hardly convincing. At best, you might have a decent point if you were arguing that we should accept 10-15% of the waste from the Palo Verde plant. Unfortunately, what’s being argued is that Nevada should accept 100% of the waste from every nuclear power plant in operation, including any new ones that might be built in the future. > > Sorry, but we don’t want it. It would probably save everyone a lot of time and energy if you just admitted to being a NIMBY. It seems to be the more honest answer, and I think a lot of people would respect that to a certain extent. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/255 "2009-02-27T03:11:59Z")
How’s this for a reason? Nevada should get the nuclear waste because that’s the best place for it, just like you got Hoover Dam because you’re the best place for that, too. And it’s not like you even really have a say in the decision: Yucca Mountain is on land owned by the federal government, which makes it the federal government’s say as to how that land gets used. And I’ll bet that if you look into the history of how that land came under federal government control, you’ll find a duly-elected Nevada senator who _wanted_ it to be put to federal use, to bring money into the state. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/256 "2009-02-27T03:20:36Z")
Don’t worry - among his many other recent spectacularly bad decisions, Obama has announced that he’ll try to shut down Yucca mountain and is dramatically cutting funding for it. I guess nuclear is off the table again. [Cite.](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a9V3MZRVLn5Y&refer=us) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/257 "2009-02-27T03:24:26Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] My attitude is flying quite well, thank you. I mean, as you pointed out, at the moment it looks a lot like my side is winning this debate. [/QUOTE] Well, that seems true enough. Rather the same flavor as a Creationist crowing about how their side is ‘winning’ though. But if it makes you happy to be on such a side…whatever floats your boat. > [@](#): > > Apples and bananas. Nuclear waste stored in Alabama doesn’t affect me. Global warming affects everyone on the planet. Not your best analogy. Well, you seem to agree with the analogy, so I’m unsure why you then say it doesn’t work very well. Global Warming DOES effect you…and nuclear waste in a local area doesn’t, it only effects those in a very localized area (and really, it doesn’t even do that since it has no effect at all when properly contained). Seriously…rethink what you just said there and put it in the context of the actual debate here. Global effects effect everyone…local effects don’t. Tada! We have arrived… After you wrap your head around that then we can start talking about why it’s a good idea to centralize nuclear waste…and why Yucca Mountain is the best site for doing so right now (whether it is the most optimal site in the country or not is moot at this point…it’s been the focus for over a decade and we’ve poured billions into studying and preparing it). After that we can get into probability statistics and risk assessment and why worrying about catching ebola (a.k.a. fretting about nuclear waste) is less likely then catching the common cold (planet going tits up due to Global Warming). After that we are home free. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t. Not in this instance. There was no agreement made that “if the country builds the dam, you will accept nuclear waste”. Just because we are a part of the union doesn’t mean we have to be the garbage dump. You keep arguing that we are obligated in some manner, and that simply isn’t true. Nevada doesn’t owe the rest of the country anything with regards to nuclear waste, any more than Ohio does, or Wyoming. You are, simply put, wrong. You owe the union the same thing that every other state does…including Ohio and Wyoming. Had Texas been chosen to become the nuclear repository then Texas is where the site would have been (well, I’m sure it would have been the same bullshit there with the anti-nukes coming out of the wood work in Texas instead of Nevada). Hell man, you know better than this…after all, you SHOULD know that Nevada is where the friggin [Test Site](http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/default.htm) is. Congress voted to go ahead with the project (until they decided to cut funding because the bad guys are winning)…which, being in the union and all (and the land being Federally owned), means Nevada plays host to a centralized nuclear waste facility…well, in theory at least if they ever actually finish the thing and start shipping waste there. Seriously…you don’t understand that the Federal Government can make these kinds of decisions whether an individual state wants it or not?? Did you miss that whole Civil War thingy in the '60’s (the 1860’s that is)?? -XT ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/258 "2009-02-27T03:27:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Apples and bananas. Nuclear waste stored in Alabama doesn’t affect me. \*\*Global warming affects everyone on the planet. \*\*Not your best analogy. > > . Uhhh, Dude… Thats the BEST DAMN reason there is for using nuclear power. Ohhh, thats right, you are probably using your solar powered bicycle to motor on over to the solar powered ski lift to snowboard, after which you head on down to the solar powered ski lodge to drink the 100 percent solar made alcoholic beverages… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/259 "2009-02-27T03:29:47Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Don’t worry - among his many other recent spectacularly bad decisions, Obama has announced that he’ll try to shut down Yucca mountain and is dramatically cutting funding for it. I guess nuclear is off the table again. [/QUOTE] I had heard that Congress had cut the budget but this is the first I’m hearing that it’s completely off the table. Wonderful. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/260 "2009-02-27T03:32:06Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Uhhh, > > Dude… > > Thats the BEST DAMN reason there is for using nuclear power. > > Ohhh, thats right, you are probably using your solar powered bicycle to motor on over to the solar powered ski lift to snowboard, after which you head on down to the solar powered ski lodge to drink the 100 percent solar made alcoholic beverages… I don’t drink. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035.md?page=14)