User profile: Energy4u

Leenaree: Sorry, but you need to check your facts. Used nuclear fuel has been shipped on a routine basis in both the US and the world and has a perfect safety record. People often make the mistake of assuming that the material hasn't been shipped since there is no repository. The reality is that there have been over 3000 shipments in the US and 20000 in the world. Examples of shipments include used naval fuel from ports to Idaho where it is stored. Shipments of leased fuel from reactors to the GE facility in Morris, Illinois. I can list other shipping campaigns that verify the fact that not only has the material been shipped, but it is done safely and often.

The only thing that is disgraceful is that the Sun is so predictable in that it always, without exception, finds fault with the science of Yucca and always, again without exception, buys into the whatever Bob Loux and his office says. How can a thousand plus of the top scientist in the world always be wrong and Loux always right?

In my opinion it is not responsible to comment on something like the radiation standard without first carefully reading it. The standard is over 130 pages long. Did the editors take the time to truly understand what it says? Do the editors and reports truly understand what the underlying issues are? What the National Academy of Science input was? Only they can honestly answer these questions, but I'm fairly certain the public not only knows the answer, but also has a strong held view on the credibility of the various players.

Has anyone ever noticed that if DOE (or the EPA or any other federal agency involved with Yucca) does something in a short period of time the opponents argue that DOE is rushing and doing shoddy work and if they take a long time to do something -- well then DOE is incompetent or wasteful or hiding something. The list of contradictions goes on and on and the reality of the situation is painfully obvious to all observers.

Back to the standard. Do the editors realize have any concept of just how conservative the standard is -- that the person being exposed to is assumed to be living 12 miles from the site, 24/7, eating and drinking only food products derived from the immediate area? And still can only be exposed in a full year to roughly 1/10th of the radiation of a single CAT scan.

Please -- can we finally stop the name calling and rhetoric and truly let science decide?

What's the rush? You can't have it both ways. You chide the project for delay (caused in part by professional intervenors) and then turn around and attack the project for moving too fast on the license application??? A healthy dose of context is needed. Most of the Yucca science was done during the Clinton admin. That is also when Yucca was determined to be safe. For political reasons Clinton left the formal announcement and approval to the Bush folks. If the license application was rushed, which it wasn't, the application will not survive the intense review process that will occur over the next 4 or so years. The integrity of the NRC regulatory process is open for review. How exactly did the Sun editors determine that the application was submitted prematurely. Have they read the license application? Do they understand the regulatory process? Have they participated in a nuclear facility licensing process?

Has the Sun stepped back to put the exposure regulations they so frequently talk about in context??? NRC regulations only allow a member of the public to be exposed to 15mr or 5% of a typical persons annual exposure to natural radiation. A member of my family recently received a medical dose equal to 400,000 times as much as the Yucca exposure limit to successfully treat a tumor.

THIS COUNTRY AND WORLD CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO MAKE ARGUMENTS AND DECISIONS BASED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION, FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN, AND SUPERFICIAL POLITICALLY CHARGED HYPERBOLE.

Excellent comment Future 2012. I strongly encourage all Nevadans to learn about the licensing process -- it is everything that Nevada and politicians have asked for -- a transparent and scientific review of the safety case for Yucca Mountain. This process gets the issue out of the political arena and into the technical arena where it belongs and it gives those who disagree with the DOE the opportunity to have their technical and safety concerns heard.

Patricia: I urge you to tour Yucca -- it will be readily apparent that it in no way shape or form a "dump" or place where material will be "buried." It is an extremely sophisticated engineered facility.

The capacity is nothing more than a legislated number -- the program has been so delayed by intervention that the amount of material being temporarily stored keeps increasing (although it is still below the 70,000 metric tons indicated in the law). At the time Congress planned to authorize a second repository. The bottom line from a technical standpoint -- Yucca can safely handle far more material than the arbitrary amount set in law.

All of this will be rendered moot if we go forward with recycling (as we should and almost certainly will). Recycling will significantly reduce the volume below the amount set in law.

Regarding the downwind comment -- we are not downwind of Yucca. Lincoln County and Utah is and the material is a solid pellet. This is not the above ground weapons testing of the 50's we are talking about. There is no reasonable dispersal method via wind.

Yes material from the nuclear navy and the weapons complex requires disposal. No matter how you feel about those issues the fact of the matter is that the waste exists and it needs to be safely and securely disposed. The nuclear navy provides are most important strategic military assets. Those huge submarines and air craft carriers essentially go to the gas station just once -- thanks to the fact that they are nuclear fueled.