Scientists e-mails reveal that they fabricated data on the safety of Yucca Mountain.
What’s that guy in Repoman say? “Radiation. They say it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. You can survive a hundred chest X-rays a year, and you should have them too!”
The folks weeding out the “undesirable” data … did they call themselves the OSP, by chance?
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you!
Obviously it’s much safer to have it scattered across the country in less secure temporary storage near large population centers.
Maybe with accurate truthful info we can come up with a legitimate solution. Can’t do it when the info used to make the decision is malinfo.
It is much safer. Give me a little while and I’ll fake up some documents to prove it.
See the problem here?
-Joe
Well, it has been studied to death, and all in all, YM seems our best alternative. Of course this is based on my desire for quick action to get this stuff someplace safe (or mostly safe) soon.
If we wait fifty years we might have a better location, but I do not want to wait. Theis waste stuff being aboveground creeps me out.
And even if Yucca Mountain isn’t safe, it’s just Nevada. It’s already a wasteland.
It is certainly safer than the alternative. In fact the real problem will be getting the waste from a couple of miles from your house to YM. That would be a challenge.
It seems safe enough for the timeframe I am interested in (say a thousand years). It may not be safe enough for the billion years they are using as a standard.
I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that YM already needs to be replaced as the waste we already have will fill it up. That is scary.
BTW, I like Nevada. Heck, I am a legal resident of Nevada (for tax reasons of course).
Not really; they have armored, nearly unbreakable transports and send them along with soldiers to be sure.
Digging utmmore ground at Yucca wouldn’t be hard.
Not really; they have armored, nearly unbreakable transports and send them along with soldiers to be sure.
Digging out more ground at Yucca wouldn’t be hard.
I’m having a hard time imagining how you can possibly fake data on Yucca Mountain, anyway. What are they going to say? It’s a mountain in a wasteland and no one wants to be near it. That’s the whole reason it was chosen. That and Arizons has very little influence in Congress.
Well, for my money, we have to put the waste somewhere. If we can’t put it in the wastelands of the West, where the hell can we put it? That’s a question we’d better answer soon, because as oil dwindles, and as we switch to a hydrogen economy, we may need a lot more nuclear energy to separate hydrogen for our cars.
That stuff’s got to go in somebody’s back yard, and the desert seems the best of what may only be bad options.
And when we’re overrun by irradiated Tor Johnsons, you’ll be sorry.
As I understand it, the argument is over whether surface water penetrates to the level where the waste is stored, and whether that surface water might one leach nuclear waste into the ground water below.
I wouldn’t want to be overrun by Tor Johnsons of either the radiated or non-radiated variety.
There’s actually a couple of reactor designs out there like CANDU and IFR that can use the waste materials from conventional reactor cores to generate electricity. The waste from those reactors is significantly more compact and less hazardous than that from conventional reactors. I’m not sure, but I think that so called “pebble bed” reactors can also use the waste from conventional reactors. IAC all three designs are vastly superior to conventional reactors, if for no other reason that there’s no danger they’ll ever go critical.
The wastelands of the east?
Or, alternately, Florida. When it gets full, we just lop it off and set it adrift… 