Clark's Statement On Yucca Mountain Litigation

[NV1962]

Taken from a press release:

For Immediate Release
Date: January 14, 2004

Clark's Statement On Yucca Mountain Litigation

"I am against the nuke dump at Yucca Mountain, period. I will use the full force of the presidency to kill this dangerous product, which would put the lives and health of Nevadans at risk for generations. Unlike President Bush and other politicians, that is the only position I've ever taken and it will remain my position as president."

[SeveneightyWhoa]

1. So what does he plan on doing instead?

I didnt read the entire thing, but I'm wondering about what he wants to do instead.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. The only other sensible alternative is to continue present action

which is above ground storage AT the plants which generate the waste.
They need security anyway, and at least you can keep an eye on it until someone figures out something better.

[bahrbearian]

6. I thought that they were going to use it on the New Moon Station.

[maxanne]

10. this may be

the first time I've ever agreed with you, NYMA. Who'd have thought??

Nuke waste can't be safely transported. Leave it where it is, and don't produce any more.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. Not so fast!

Let's not agree so readliy ( :) )- we need to keep producing more 'til we get a substitute for that energy source!

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Clark didn't further elaborate

...and that's a good question. Nuke waste is already being stored at various sites, usually near the site of the reactor from which they came. Yucca Mountain plan is an unsafe one, along with the transportation issues. Why don't you write to Clark's HQ people and ask if he has a plan that supports such a grand statement?

[KittyWampus]

7. Point Well Taken!

[ramapo]

12. Exactly,,,this needed to be addressed 30 years ago

Maybe 40 years ago.

The waste sitting in cooling ponds and the like is a disaster waiting to happen. Most n-plants are in heavily populated areas. The waste is dangerous. Some of it is highly radioactive. Prone to terrorist attack or accident.

Nobody wants this stuff around but putting it all in a central location so it can be guarded is a first step. Hope that new technology can transmutate the stuff so we don't have to wait around for thousands of years for it to decay.

The waste isn't hugh in volume. Transportation is a concern. But it has to be kept someplace.

We're going to keep producing n-waste. The current plants aren't going to be shut down.

Clark needs to provide an answer....

[Kool Kitty]

13. Have any of the candidates said

what they would do about this? Mentioned solutions for this problem, I mean. Because it is going to be a problem.

[Peregrine]

17. the Moon in 2015(?)

or since Bush is going to dump the international space station, could be an alternative.

[Robroy]

2. Move the dump to Crawford, TX

n/t

[TexasPatriot]

8. heheheheh

that would be funny...

[bluestateguy]

5. 5 electoral votes in Nevada for the taking

Al Gore did not campaign there in 2000. Bush made a half-hearted promise to oppose a nuclear waste dump in NV, that he had no intention of keeping. Wes Clark should declare his intention to fully contest the state of Nevada if he is the nominee.

[carols]

9. It always intrigued me that * thought an earthquake zone

was a good place for a nuclear waste dump.
Carol

[Kool Kitty]

11. Since all these politicians think that

nuclear power is such a great idea, why not put all the waste in Washington, D.C.? I'm sure the White House grounds would be large enough to contain it all. What's that, W? You don't think it's a good idea? Then why is it a good idea to run it by rail two blocks from my house, or anyone else's? Why is it a good idea to dump it it Nevada? I'm glad that Clark made a statement about this, fear of anything nuclear is my favorite hysteria. I just hope that he has a good alternate plan. (Although I think keeping it just as it is seems to be working, so far.)

[NV1962]

14. The best analogy for what went wrong with Yucca Mountain is:

the US declaring war on Iraq, and sending Nevadan soldiers only to fight it.

Initially, there were three sites from which to pick two locations. Lo and behold, in 1987, a sneaky Congress decides to forgo all three (gee, would pandering to the respective constituents of the three candidates have something to do with it?) and appointed a new location as "the spot:" Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

After that, rules and procedures of the "selection confirmation" process have been frequently changed, in simple terms: rigged so that only Yucca Mountain in Nevada would fit the "desired qualifications."

Just like the War in Iraq, it was a foregone conclusion, to be ram-rodded down the throats of the people.

That's why in Nevada about 75% of the population opposes it, with a very, very bipartisan bloc from the Republican governor and the two senators (Ensign-R and Reid-D) down. If that isn't enough to illustrate the profound indignation here, consider this: the whole Yucca Mountain project has a total budge of $58bn and employs more than 10,000 people. Yet in spite of all these vested interests for local business and jobs, 75% still opposes it, in an overall conservative-leaning state...

Also of note, although not terribly surprising: Bush made a promise during his election campaign to stop it. Instead, he has put the "selection" process on the fast track. Of course, his incestuous relationship with the energy sector has nothing whatsoever to do with that broken promise!

That's why Wes Clark's pledge has an important impact here.

[ozone_man]

18. Personally, I would like to decommission all nuclear facilities

and replace them with renewable energy, and start a serious alternative energy program.

But I don't think decommissioning will happen soon. Storing waste locally does not address issues such as seismic stability and terrorism. I thought the salt flats or other desert sites were very stable, and low in population, making them good sites, no?

Also, it is easier to safe guard a central storage site for 20,000 years (joke) than it is to safe guard 100 storage sites for 20,000 years (or whatever the half life is). Yeah, transportation is an issue, but there may be ways to make it safe. In any case, it is not an easy issue.

So, does Clark have an alternative plan? Also, why does Clark think depleted Uranium is safe for our soldiers and civilian population on the receiving end? My gut feeling is that it may be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome or some other illnesses. Remember Agent Orange effects didn't come out for many years later.

[imhotep]

16. Clark says nuclear waste is safe to drop on Serbia.

Why is it dangerous for Nevada?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. When and where did he make that statement?

Care to back it up? How about a link?