Bipartisan Group of House Members Flo...

Bipartisan Group of House Members Float Plan to Block Yucca Mountain Closure

There are 21 comments on the www.nytimes.com story from Mar 25, 2010, titled Bipartisan Group of House Members Float Plan to Block Yucca Mountain Closure. In it, www.nytimes.com reports that:

A group of House Democrats and Republicans introduced a resolution yesterday to stop the Obama administration from ending the nuclear waste repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and to save important project data.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.nytimes.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
well

Kingsport, TN

#1 Mar 25, 2010
so just where are we going to store all this waste? you know it has a shelf life of 50,000 years........ fuktards

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#2 Mar 25, 2010
well wrote:
so just where are we going to store all this waste? you know it has a shelf life of 50,000 years........ fuktards
I think the radical enviromentalists who dictate Obama's agenda are just going to stick their heads in the sand and pretend nuclear waste doesn't exist.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#3 Mar 25, 2010
Yucca Mountain would be very suitable for short term storage...perhaps 10,000 years or so.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#4 Mar 25, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
Yucca Mountain would be very suitable for short term storage...

perhaps 10,000 years or so.
I could live with that.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#5 Mar 25, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I could live with that.
You're delusional; you likely won't make it past 85.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#7 Mar 25, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>

You're delusional; you likely won't make it past 85.
Most people don't live that long.

And under ObamaCare even fewer will than there used to be.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#8 Mar 25, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people don't live that long.
And under ObamaCare even fewer will than there used to be.
Nuclear fuel rods will still be deadly after the passage of the same number of years during which humans evolved.
A Nnoyed

Levittown, NY

#9 Mar 25, 2010
Look on the bright side, after humans are extinct, the area will become a hotbed of coolass mutations.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#10 Mar 25, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>Nuclear fuel rods will still be deadly after the passage of the same number of years during which humans evolved.
Sure, but all those nuclear rods already exist and after putting them in Yucca Mountain we have 10,000 years to figure out our next move.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#11 Mar 25, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, but all those nuclear rods already exist and after putting them in Yucca Mountain we have 10,000 years to figure out our next move.
You, my clueless friend, have barely a couple of decades, if that. But, you're starting to get a handle on this if you've figured out that very smart people have tried and failed to come up with suitable long term storage, that Yucca Mountain at the very best may be better interim storage than what we have now, and that 10,000 years from now we may still be searching for a long term storage solution.

“Bounce Barry in 12, Dems in 10”

Since: Mar 08

AZ, Sonoran Desert

#12 Mar 25, 2010
This is truly funny. 10,000 years is interim storage? 10,000 years ago humans were running around in furs clubbing animals. It's also truly funny how radical enviromentalists (ie. everyone appointed to an enviromental position under BO) are always more concerned about possible harm caused to some abandoned spot where noone ever goes or some kind of tiny variation on a minnow that happens to have a spot in a different place than all the other minnows than to inconveniencing or harming millions of humans. It's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that despite all their protestations of being filled with love for people, leftists of all sorts truly despise people. Except maybe themselves, and their close allies.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#13 Mar 26, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>

You, my clueless friend, have barely a couple of decades, if that. But, you're starting to get a handle on this if you've figured out that very smart people have tried and failed to come up with suitable long term storage, that Yucca Mountain at the very best may be better interim storage than what we have now, and that 10,000 years from now we may still be searching for a long term storage solution.
I guess if I were a lib and only thinking of myself I might not care what happens beyond my lifetime.

But I do care and I think a 10,000 year storage option is more than enough time to find a better solution.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#14 Mar 26, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess if I were a lib and only thinking of myself I might not care what happens beyond my lifetime.
But I do care and I think a 10,000 year storage option is more than enough time to find a better solution.
It's not an option. The need is for long term storage, say a couple of million years.
Ego te absolvo

Greenbrier, AR

#15 Mar 26, 2010
Nuclear waste is more controlled and confined than the existent nuclear isotopes floating everywhere in the environment due to DEMOCRATS blowing off atmospheric nuclear bombs. It's everywhere and connoisseurs are now using nuclear isotope testing based on those atmospheric explosions to date wine for investment purposes. The previous nuclear waste that DEMOCRATS contracted for disposal was dumped in rusting barrels in the sea and now, when you eat shrimp, crab, oysters and other shell fish and scavengers of the sea, you get an especially good dose of radioactive isotopes.

People need to stop using their fear of things DEMOCRATS did in the past and the much more modern approaches to storing nuclear waste.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#16 Mar 26, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>It's not an option. The need is for long term storage, say a couple of million years.
As we keep pointing out, 10,000 years is long term storage.

You're just demanding an impossible standard because you don't want any more nuclear reactors built in spite of our need for energy.

Oh well, we still have plenty of coal.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#17 Mar 26, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
As we keep pointing out, 10,000 years is long term storage.
You're just demanding an impossible standard because you don't want any more nuclear reactors built in spite of our need for energy.
Oh well, we still have plenty of coal.
Generally, ten times the half-life is required for dissipation of radioactivity. Ten thousand years isn't even enough for carbon-14 wastes. This is not doctoral level physics: do the math...if isotopes in fuel rods have a half-life of 20,000 years, then storage for ten half lives equals ?
I support nuclear power. However, Yucca Mountain proved to be inadequate for long-term storage of fuel rod wastes because the geology and hydrology were inadequate. A better solution is being sought.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#18 Mar 27, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>Generally, ten times the half-life is required for dissipation of radioactivity. Ten thousand years isn't even enough for carbon-14 wastes. This is not doctoral level physics: do the math...if isotopes in fuel rods have a half-life of 20,000 years, then storage for ten half lives equals ?
I support nuclear power. However, Yucca Mountain proved to be inadequate for long-term storage of fuel rod wastes because the geology and hydrology were inadequate. A better solution is being sought.
Good lucky trying to convince anyone that 10,000 years isn't long enough before we have to find something else.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#19 Mar 27, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good lucky trying to convince anyone that 10,000 years isn't long enough before we have to find something else.
I think every person on The Commission on America's Nuclear Future and all of their staff will agree that the most dangerous wastes need to be stored 6-8 half-lives at a minimum.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#20 Mar 27, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>I think every person on The Commission on America's Nuclear Future and all of their staff will agree that the most dangerous wastes need to be stored 6-8 half-lives at a minimum.
Who says they can't be?

You seem to be suggesting that after 10,000 years the future caretakers of the rods will just toss them out to the curb to be hauled away.
Lance Winslow

Orinda, CA

#21 Mar 27, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says they can't be?
You seem to be suggesting that after 10,000 years the future caretakers of the rods will just toss them out to the curb to be hauled away.
After far less than 10,000 years, the rods may resemble what's left of our nuclear test range in Nevada. There's no prayer of ever cleaning that up, ever. Look at what is costs to remediate Hanford and multiply it by 10(exponent)6. That's why Yucca Mountain is no longer in contention and we're looking for a plan b.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Doc Hastings Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drone Use OK'ed for Agricultural, Real Estate C... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Peter Simmons 2
News Sen. Pat Roberts grabs early lead in Kansas GOP... (Aug '14) Aug '14 Asian Guy 5
News Tea party still has election hopes as chances d... (Jul '14) Jul '14 woofpack 19
News In historic vote, House backs medical marijuana (May '14) Jun '14 Cordwainer Trout 6
News McCain: no global warming action until the left... (Mar '14) Mar '14 SpaceBlues 1
News Survey: Many Americans Don't Know What Fracking Is (May '13) Dec '13 d pantz 217
News House Republicans vote to deport DREAMers (Jun '13) Jun '13 See the Light 9
More from around the web