vegas and the debate in october, lol

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler suggest that the waste should be stored within the safest site possible.




Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mally, where is the better site to store nuclear waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan
I must have missed that story about turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump....or maybe someone is exaggerating? I remember some project to store nuclear waste safely under a mountain in Nevada. If nuclear waste has to go somewhere, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - in a state with very low population, especially in certain regions. Heck, Area 51 fits right in with Nevada. Somehow I think stating the bill's intentions "turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump" is a just a wee bit disingenuous.



Storing nuclear waste 100 miles away from a major population center underground on top of fault lines in state with scarce water resources, what could possibly go wrong? Do you think maybe we could get the guys that built the Fukushima reactors to design the containers to store the waste in? I heard they work really cheap now. Even today,Republicans are fighting to turn Nevada into a dumping ground for other state's nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) even though Nevada doesn't produce any nuclear waste of its own.




The states that produce it. It is called personal responsibility. If you want to build reactors in your state that is fine, but don't force some other state to store the crap you produce. Manage your own nuclear waste.



There is no evidence that Yucca Mountain is the safest place. In fact current research seems to indicate it is a very poor choice, and it is safer to keep the waste close to where it is produced as their are no risks transporting it that way. In any event it would cost in excess of 3 billion dollars to simply build a railroad to Yucca mountain, so the waste could be transported there. All that exists at the site is a 5 mile long exploratory tunnel. There are no waste disposal tunnels, receiving and handling facilities, and the waste containers and transportation casks have yet to be developed.


So you have nothing. No suggestions about the safest place to store this waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler suggest that the waste should be stored within the safest site possible.




Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mally, where is the better site to store nuclear waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan
I must have missed that story about turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump....or maybe someone is exaggerating? I remember some project to store nuclear waste safely under a mountain in Nevada. If nuclear waste has to go somewhere, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - in a state with very low population, especially in certain regions. Heck, Area 51 fits right in with Nevada. Somehow I think stating the bill's intentions "turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump" is a just a wee bit disingenuous.



Storing nuclear waste 100 miles away from a major population center underground on top of fault lines in state with scarce water resources, what could possibly go wrong? Do you think maybe we could get the guys that built the Fukushima reactors to design the containers to store the waste in? I heard they work really cheap now. Even today,Republicans are fighting to turn Nevada into a dumping ground for other state's nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) even though Nevada doesn't produce any nuclear waste of its own.




The states that produce it. It is called personal responsibility. If you want to build reactors in your state that is fine, but don't force some other state to store the crap you produce. Manage your own nuclear waste.



There is no evidence that Yucca Mountain is the safest place. In fact current research seems to indicate it is a very poor choice, and it is safer to keep the waste close to where it is produced as their are no risks transporting it that way. In any event it would cost in excess of 3 billion dollars to simply build a railroad to Yucca mountain, so the waste could be transported there. All that exists at the site is a 5 mile long exploratory tunnel. There are no waste disposal tunnels, receiving and handling facilities, and the waste containers and transportation casks have yet to be developed.


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mally, where is the better site to store nuclear waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan
I must have missed that story about turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump....or maybe someone is exaggerating? I remember some project to store nuclear waste safely under a mountain in Nevada. If nuclear waste has to go somewhere, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - in a state with very low population, especially in certain regions. Heck, Area 51 fits right in with Nevada. Somehow I think stating the bill's intentions "turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump" is a just a wee bit disingenuous.



Storing nuclear waste 100 miles away from a major population center underground on top of fault lines in state with scarce water resources, what could possibly go wrong? Do you think maybe we could get the guys that built the Fukushima reactors to design the containers to store the waste in? I heard they work really cheap now. Even today,Republicans are fighting to turn Nevada into a dumping ground for other state's nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) even though Nevada doesn't produce any nuclear waste of its own.




The states that produce it. It is called personal responsibility. If you want to build reactors in your state that is fine, but don't force some other state to store the crap you produce. Manage your own nuclear waste.


Do you have any clue, any clue whatsoever what that would entail? I suspect you haven't nary a clue on the matter because, 1) The expense of a waste site is more than 20 bucks and 2) most plants are on the eastern part of the US(HINT: where major population canters are located.
You seriously would rather dot the country with disposal sites? This is one of your problems, you spout something out with no regard to thinking about it. Here's a map for you..



You really wanna dig a hole and let these places deal with it? SHEESH!

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mally, where is the better site to store nuclear waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan
I must have missed that story about turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump....or maybe someone is exaggerating? I remember some project to store nuclear waste safely under a mountain in Nevada. If nuclear waste has to go somewhere, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - in a state with very low population, especially in certain regions. Heck, Area 51 fits right in with Nevada. Somehow I think stating the bill's intentions "turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump" is a just a wee bit disingenuous.



Storing nuclear waste 100 miles away from a major population center underground on top of fault lines in state with scarce water resources, what could possibly go wrong? Do you think maybe we could get the guys that built the Fukushima reactors to design the containers to store the waste in? I heard they work really cheap now. Even today,Republicans are fighting to turn Nevada into a dumping ground for other state's nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) even though Nevada doesn't produce any nuclear waste of its own.




The states that produce it. It is called personal responsibility. If you want to build reactors in your state that is fine, but don't force some other state to store the crap you produce. Manage your own nuclear waste.



Now you mention personal responsibility, I'm going to remember that.

Looking at that map, you quickly realize most of the waste is produced on the East Coast and in the upper Midwest. The idea of transporting it all the way to the other side of the country on a railroad that hasn't even been built in transportation casks that haven't been created is bizarre.

The waste should be stored near where it was created to minimize the transportation risk and to ensure the areas that got the benefit of the nuclear power have to share in the risks of disposing it.

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mally, where is the better site to store nuclear waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan
I must have missed that story about turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump....or maybe someone is exaggerating? I remember some project to store nuclear waste safely under a mountain in Nevada. If nuclear waste has to go somewhere, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - in a state with very low population, especially in certain regions. Heck, Area 51 fits right in with Nevada. Somehow I think stating the bill's intentions "turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump" is a just a wee bit disingenuous.



Storing nuclear waste 100 miles away from a major population center underground on top of fault lines in state with scarce water resources, what could possibly go wrong? Do you think maybe we could get the guys that built the Fukushima reactors to design the containers to store the waste in? I heard they work really cheap now. Even today,Republicans are fighting to turn Nevada into a dumping ground for other state's nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) even though Nevada doesn't produce any nuclear waste of its own.




The states that produce it. It is called personal responsibility. If you want to build reactors in your state that is fine, but don't force some other state to store the crap you produce. Manage your own nuclear waste.


Do you have any clue, any clue whatsoever what that would entail? I suspect you haven't nary a clue on the matter because, 1) The expense of a waste site is more than 20 bucks and 2) most plants are on the eastern part of the US(HINT: where major population canters are located.
You seriously would rather dot the country with disposal sites? This is one of your problems, you spout something out with no regard to thinking about it. Here's a map for you..



You really wanna dig a hole and let these places deal with it? SHEESH!


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Looking at that map, you quickly realize most of the waste is produced on the East Coast and in the upper Midwest. The idea of transporting it all the way to the other side of the country on a railroad that hasn't even been built in transportation casks that haven't been created is bizarre.

The waste should be stored near where it was created to minimize the transportation risk and to ensure the areas that got the benefit of the nuclear power have to share in the risks of disposing it.

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Mally, where is the better site to store nuclear waste?


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2 It is called personal responsibility.

You really wanna dig a hole and let these places deal with it? SHEESH!



Such an armchair QB.

If I burn my house down does it mean I am entitled to show up and you door and demand you vacate your home because your home is now in my mind the best a safest place for me to live?
Malibber2, so proximity to population is a major concern of yours. Where are those safest places out east, and how much will it cost? Do you really suggest that we build 100 plus sites. How much would it cost to build 100 such site vs 1 site?

Liberals never worry about the economic realities.
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
And Hillary didn't lie about Benghazi, but let's not concern ourselves with the truth.


And Bush and Cheney haven't lied about who was behind 9/11, weapons of MD in Iraq and "facts" about all that led to that war in Afghanistan and Iraq. No, let's conveniently forget about that. Let's really not concern ourselves with the truth about who's really responsible for havoc in the middle east and the financial collapse of the USA. Dumb ass!
Launch it all into the depths of space. Chicago, Buffalo, Cape Cod, Baltimore, Durham and Knoxville could be pretty good launch sites.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now