Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: A vote for sanity

Thursday, Dec. 4, 2003 | 8:37 a.m.

IF I COULD vote for Dick Gephardt tomorrow for the presidency of the United States, I'd do it.

Why? Because he understands the absurdity and undeniable danger inherent in shipping high-level nuclear waste across this entire country, through cities large and small, over bridges, on barges and on rail cars that pass thousands of schools full of little kids, just to bury it a few miles from Las Vegas.

If Joe Lieberman were on the ballot today, I'd vote for him, too. The same is true for Sen. John Kerry and any other candidate who believes that Yucca Mountain is a bad idea, not only for the 1.5 million people who live in Las Vegas but also for more than 100 million other people whose lives will be in danger with every one of the thousands of trucks and trains that will roll past them over the next three decades.

Why is it so hard to understand that high-level nuclear waste is not good for children and other living things? Why are some people so quick to accept the word of those whose financial interests are directly tied to the nuclear power industry when they tell us not to worry, that the government has it all under control and that the Department of Energy's ability to deal with radioactive waste gives us all reason to be secure in our homes and at work?

Is it possible that some Las Vegans have been so blinded by the gold in President George W. Bush's tax cuts that they have taken leave of their senses and their long-term health and financial interests in Las Vegas? Could it be that there are so many people who believe that only President Bush can lead us out of the valley of terrorism, and because of that they are willing to hock their kid's futures on his plan to bury the nation's radioactive garbage in our backyard?

This is not an anti-Bush column, it is an anti-anyone who thinks that shipping 70,000-plus tons of nuclear poison through most major population centers and down Interstate 15 on its way to Yucca Mountain is either a good idea or a necessary evil in the effort to find a solution to radioactive waste.

When Congressman Richard Gephardt was in Las Vegas earlier this week he did what any smart politician should do. He told the people of Nevada that shipping the nuclear waste across the country was nuts and that it is a better idea to leave that stuff at the power plants where it is made and currently resides.

The difference between Gephardt and President Bush, for example, is that when candidate Bush was in Nevada asking for votes he sided with science as the determinant for where that garbage should go and, as soon as he took office, changed sides to cozy up with his financial backers in the power industry to do what they wanted, not what was right or what he promised.

Gephardt has maintained his opposition to Yucca Mountain regardless of where he speaks. He is consistent. Bush is not.

Even the Democratic candidates who voted in the U.S. Senate to seal Nevada's fate under tons of nuclear waste are consistent. I don't agree and can't see myself voting for anyone who acted against Nevada's interests on such a life-and-death matter but, at least, they say the same thing wherever they go.

Whether it was a major coal shipment that derailed in Gephardt's district earlier this year, or a truck that drove itself off a bridge into the Arkansas River last year, or any number of tractor-trailer accidents on the nation's freeways that tie up traffic while their contents are cleaned up, there is no denying the fact that had those been full of high-level radioactive waste instead of coal, or fuel oil or any number of dangerous but far less deadly materials, the results could have been devastating.

And just in case anyone has developed a bad case of trust in the private sector's ability to be concerned about safety, consider the latest comedy act involving Southern California Edison's attempt to transfer a 770-ton used nuclear reactor to South Carolina.

The same government that sees nothing wrong with opening our nation's highways to high-level waste trucks and the potential terrorist attacks and accidents that will go with that plan, had been opposing Southern California Edison's idea of using our federal highways and byways for their burial scheme. Other governments have also said no to shipping the reactor over, under, around and through the Panama Canal or the treacherous waters of Cape Horn. And, still, the private owners of the nuclear reactor kept trying.

But the government charade ended earlier this week when it caved in to the monied interests. The U.S. Transportation Department decided, after all, to approve the shipment around the tip of South America.

It's a decision, however, that won't be good for regular people. Doesn't the government know that ships sink?

The bottom line is this: Nuclear waste is something no one wants and almost everyone will soon get thanks to the politicians who say one thing and do another. So, if you count yourself among those who think that radioactivity is bad for you and your family, consider how you want to hold those people accountable who are delivering that stuff practically to your door.

There is nothing complicated about the answer. Those who don't care about my health, my future and that of my family do not get my vote.