20 Responses to “Comment on Yucca Mountain”

1. dana Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 11:53 am

   the issue with yucca mountain is that it *isn’t* safe, geologically. all kinds of evidence has been presented to the government and they’ve just kind of shrugged it off.

   also, the transport of waste to yucca mountain is going to be problematic. they’ll be using trains, and they’ll be going through major population centers. funny, i thought we faced a terrorism threat in this country.

   This comment was written by dana.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
2. lucia Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 12:05 pm

   the issue with yucca mountain is that it *isn’t* safe,
   One of the reasons I said I don’t know the pros and cons associated with using Yucca Mountain specifically is that I’m unfamiliar with the literature on risk assessment at the site.

   also, the transport of waste to yucca mountain is going to be problematic.

   You are correct that transportation is problematic. Safe transportation of waste is a very real problem with every single proposed solution to the current problem of storing waste. It was considered a challenge before we faced terrorism.

   We are, unfortunately, in a position where continuuing as we are is a very problematic.

   That doesn’t necessarily tell us whether or not a particular solution is good, bad or indifferent. It also doesn’t tell us if it’s the best solution or whether there might not be a better one.

   This comment was written by lucia.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
3. steve duncan Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 1:10 pm

   Wherever nuclear waste is eventually collected one thing is sure, the corporations that get the contracts to construct and maintain the facility will be close business associates of Dubya and Cheney. The cost overruns will make a Defense Dept. weapons contract look downright innocent by comparison. And when it is finally completed we’ll discover through FOIA filings, whistleblowers and some intrepid journalistic digging that nearly every aspect of the process was rife with lies, deceptions, false science, poor planning, graft, cronyism and poor congressional oversight.

   This comment was written by steve duncan.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
4. Phi Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 6:02 pm

   Yeah Steve.

   The sky is falling too.

   This comment was written by Phi.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
5. steve duncan Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 7:03 pm

   I never could afford a pair of those rose colored glasses with special myopic lenses like Phi wears.

   This comment was written by steve duncan.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
6. Phi Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 8:13 pm

   Steve

   You know nothing of my opinions or concerns regarding the Yucca Mt. problem, nor my choice of eyewear.

   By your own comments, however, I can deduce, given your ultra-paranoid rant about the issue, that you wear a tinfoil hat.

   This comment was written by Phi.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
7. Phi Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 8:20 pm

   I see that when your not too busy advocating blowing up the pentagon or country music concerts, you wax idiotic about imagined scandal.

   I read this blog to get an intelligent, opposing view on issues. You subtract from an otherwise well spoken forum. Go away.

   This comment was written by Phi.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
8. Phi Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

   From Goldberg’s piece:

   “Option A: Scattered across 39 states, in 131 locations, near dozens of population centers, and accessible by thousands of roads and waterways? Or Option B: Stored neatly in a defensible pile under thousands of feet of rock 30 seconds from a squadron of F-16s and B-52s? Yucca Mountain is already secure from al-Qaeda types because it abuts the highly classified Nevada Test Site, where we have blown up hundreds of atomic bombs. ”

   Makes sense to me. Does anybody here have a better alternative to Yucca Mt. for this waste?

   And Dana, regarding your concern about transporting the waste, here is another excerpt:

   “Nevada politicians and other opponents are also trying to scare the bejeebers out of the rest of the country by decrying the “mobile Chernobyls” that would carry the waste to Yucca Mountain. This is the reddest of all herrings. There’ve been over 3,000 nuclear-waste transports since 1964, without a radioactive release. (FYI: Nuclear waste doesn’t “spill,” because it’s cooked into dry little pellets.) Some critics try to conjure a terrorist threat to the transports, but these are actually less of a target than the current temporary facilities — because they aren’t sitting ducks. Even if some group were to catch up with a transport, and then hold off the U.S. military for a prolonged period, they still couldn’t get at the waste: Even with all of the right tools, it takes a full day to get these things off their transport beds.”

   This comment was written by Phi.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
9. Phi Writes:
   August 16th, 2004 at 8:43 pm

   And Dana, your first line about the data given to the White House:

   “This is why the arguments have become so shrill and, often, absurd. Opponents claim that the area is “geologically unstable,” in the words of The Nation. Britain’s Independent was hysterical: Under the headline, “Bush to Dump Nuclear Waste in Earthquake Zone,” the “reporter” called Yucca Mountain a “geological nightmare” and lambasted Bush for flying in “the face of scientific opinion.”

   In fact, almost no credible scientist in the world considers Yucca Mountain unstable, and, as the Energy Department is fond of pointing out, the Yucca Mountain Project has been the most scientifically studied and reviewed enterprise in human history. True, there are earthquakes in the region. But the scientifically illiterate don’t understand that earthquakes don’t do much damage 1,000 feet below solid rock. Think of a whip cracking: The tip flails about, but the handle barely moves.

   Opponents also point out that there has been volcanic activity in the past in the area. Again, no credible scientist is particularly concerned about that either. In fact, it’s good news that there’s been volcanic activity in the past, because that makes it a lot less likely there will be some in the future. The forces responsible for eruptions are moving westward, away from Yucca Mountain. “Don’t buy property in Bishop, California, in 40,000 years,” explains my guide, a senior engineer at Yucca Mountain.”

   This comment was written by Phi.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
10. John Frost Writes:
    August 16th, 2004 at 9:23 pm

    Moved to Las Vegas about 3 years ago back when everyone still thought they could stop Yucca Mountain. Derailing the project is still possible, but it only stands an outside chance.

    I think Phi raises some interesting points, all of which I’ve heard refuted and then double refuted. The arguments for and against both appear to contain some circular logic.

    ::There’ve been over 3,000 nuclear-waste transports since 1964, without a radioactive release.::

    And how many since 9/11 with a known destination? And a limited number of routes?

    ::In fact, almost no credible scientist in the world considers Yucca Mountain unstable::

    Wrong. Plenty do. Plus I don’t think the rest of the Southwest realizes exactly what is at stake here. If there is a nuclear leak 10 50 1000 years from now it’s not just Las Vegas’s water supply that will be toast, it will be Arizona’s, Southern California’s, parts of Utah, and more. It only takes one mistake and we’re all already nervous about other mistakes that have been made by this administration… Oops no WMD, Oops 20,000 voters in Florida were disenfranchised, Oops looks like our buddies at Enron really screwed you guys over with your energy bills (but they donated some of that to us so we’ll turn our heads this time), Oops we ignored that data about Yucca mountain and now we have to truck in water for 60 million people, oops I’m sorry it’s now only 40 million people. Bush is the Oops I did it again President, how can we trust him with Yucca Mt and the future of the region?

    This comment was written by John Frost.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
11. Phi Writes:
    August 16th, 2004 at 10:32 pm

    John,

    “And how many since 9/11 with a known destination? And a limited number of routes?”

    This pollution is just laying around in hundreds of locations anyway. Doesn’t it make more sense to consolidate it?

    “If there is a nuclear leak 10 50 1000 years from now it’s not just Las Vegas’s water supply that will be toast, it will be Arizona’s, Southern California’s, parts of Utah, and more. It only takes one mistake and we’re all already nervous about other mistakes that have been made by this administration”

    Because we all know the fucking imbeciles in our government will go through all the trouble of building this underground fortress, and forget to make it leak proof. They probably want it to leak man! Then all the BushCheneyHalibuton cronies with decontamination expertise can make a killing (literally) MWAAAAHAAHAA. Yeah sure. EvilBushHitler will destroy the world, blah blah fucking blah.
    I’m not trying to debunk the environmental concerns. They are valid, this is nasty nasty stuff. But to say that we shouldn’t do it because Bush is in charge is beyond stupid.

    Again, does anybody here have a better alternative (devoid of Bush hatred or conspiracy garbage) to Yucca Mt. for this waste?

    This comment was written by Phi.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
12. Ampersand Writes:
    August 16th, 2004 at 11:20 pm

    Phi:

    First of all, I really appreciate the intelligent arguments you’ve been making here; nonetheless, I must ask you to please try to keep things civil. (That applies to everyone here, of course, not just Phi.)

    Second, I don’t think that worrying about Bush/Cheney’s competance is the same as saying that they’re so evil that they want a leak. This administration has arguably shown an extraordinary incompetance even in running projects that they clearly want to go well (such as running post-invasion Iraq). In particular, the administration seems very bad at listening to evidence and arguments that don’t tell them what they want to hear.

    I don’t have the expertise to judge if there are credible arguments against the current Yucca Mountain plans. The Bush administration has access to expert arguments, but they’re too incompetant to pay attention to any arguments that don’t tell them what they’ve already decided they want to hear. As such, I don’t trust the Bushies to administrate a plan that will work - not because they are evil, but because they are incompetant. I’d feel better if a different administration made the call.

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
13. lucia Writes:
    August 17th, 2004 at 5:23 am

    All those comments in the evening— when I don’t log on! Wow.

    I do want to comment on a few things:

    1) If you read one of the links I posted you’ll learn that the DOE first considered 9 sites as potential repositories in 1983. That would be the Reagan administration. Congress downselected to Yucca mountain in 1987 — still Reagan. Although it is possible that one of the other 9 sites might have been in some way better, it’s difficult to say. Studies focus on this particular site since that time; the other sites have not been studied as intensively.

    In anycase, the choice of Yucca mountain has very, very little to do with the current administration. (I guess they could unchose it? But basically, they are going forward.)

    2) There are always a huge range of conflicting interpretations of the science on these projects. However, I don’t think there is any conspiracy involved. The people working on it– including those doing the science– are all trying their best to obtain correct answers to the questions being asked. There are always open question in scientific and engineering investigations, but I don’t think anyone is trying to provide fake scientific information.

    3) On the issue of spills– suggesting the image of mini-Chernobyls is a clear distortion. Enough is known about radioactive material that it absolutely cannot explode during transportation. (Terrorists would find it impossible to make a bomb out of– or at least no easier than digging up ore and making it from that.)

    When I agreed trasnportation has always been considrered a risk, I mean this: Even if the waste is in the form of a powder, hypothetically, a train car can derail. Vessels can break, and powder can spill and blow around. These hypothetical scenarios, and others, get talked about a lot, and engineers are assigned tasks to minimize risk during trasportation.

    For what it’s worth, we transport other, very dangerous materials, (like gasoline and amonia) all the time. But, since it’s radioactive waste, there is a lot of care and attention. (Brain storming scenarios to dream up ways things can go wrong are so common, and often so funny, that one ends up joking about the huge number of hypothetical scenarios people can dream up.)

    These transportation issues will arise no matter where we store the waste. If we picked Washington, we’d have to ship it to Wa. If we picked Florida, we’d ship there. If we picked Nebraska, ditto.

    4) We do need someplace to safely store the stuff we have. I don’t know whether Yucca mountain is the best place. I’d just like to see an acceptable place to replace the current waste storage situation. They are cleaning up K-basins. (But I have no idea where they are putting the stuff. I’d have to read– possibly a double shell tank?) However, if these basins leak, and they are 400 yards from the Columbia River. That’s the water source to a number of beautiful, populated towns, lots of farms and what some consider a major city (and others consider a minor city). That city is Portland.

    I’ve walked over the decaying reactor bundles in Kbasins. You on an open metal grating, that slips and slides as you walk. That’s the way the floor is designed– this is not a safety issue. But, it’s really, really strange to feel the floor shift slightly as you walk and look down to see radioactive material stored in a pool of water.

    This comment was written by lucia.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
14. jam Writes:
    August 17th, 2004 at 6:37 am

    one issue that has yet to be mentioned is the fact that Yucca Mountain is not the property of the US government. it is Western Shoshone land, never ceded (at least according to the Shoshone).

    for more info check out the Western Shoshone Defense Project
    http://www.wsdp.org/

    i realize this complicates matters, especially as concerns the practical necessity of where to put the stuff, but then no one wants it in their backyard, do they?

    there’s also the question of whether this was an issue that the fair people of Nevada ever had a say in (native or not)? was a vote ever taken? or did the scientists & the feds simply say “make it so”?

    lastly, i’m curious: anyone posting here actually from Nevada? (i’m not…)

    This comment was written by jam.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
15. lucia Writes:
    August 17th, 2004 at 7:15 am

    Well.. the scientists and engineers don’t say “make it so”! Ultimately, Congress decides.

    We’d have to hear from the lawyers hear to learn the relative merits of any “states rights” vs. “the fed government” issues as it pertains to Yucca mountain. (And also, the merit of the Shoshone’s treaty claim.)

    I don’t live in Nevada!

    This comment was written by lucia.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
16. Jim Writes:
    August 17th, 2004 at 8:34 am

    There are two problems with storing nuclear waste in the beautiful desert of Yucca Mountain. The first is one of place; Yucca Mountain is not a dump for the toxic trash of 20th-century science. It is holy land, and should be respected as such. A better place to “store” nuclear waste is on the shores of the Potomac River, in the White House and the Pentagon, from whence it came.

    The second problem is one of vision. Providing a “safe” dump for radioactive waste promotes the idea that muclear power is “safe”–a mid-20th century idea whose time is long gone. Any decision to protect us from the glowing legacy of our nuclear experiment should be accompanied by a decision to stop producing more radioactive pollutants along with the bombs, missles, bullets, and corporate welfare-queen generals who make them.

    I don’t live in Nevada, either.

    This comment was written by Jim.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
17. pmbryant Writes:
    August 18th, 2004 at 11:14 am

    Phi wrote:
    

    In fact, almost no credible scientist in the world considers Yucca Mountain unstable, and, as the Energy Department is fond of pointing out, the Yucca Mountain Project has been the most scientifically studied and reviewed enterprise in human history. True, there are earthquakes in the region. But the scientifically illiterate don’t understand that earthquakes don’t do much damage 1,000 feet below solid rock. Think of a whip cracking: The tip flails about, but the handle barely moves.

    Opponents also point out that there has been volcanic activity in the past in the area. Again, no credible scientist is particularly concerned about that either. In fact, it’s good news that there’s been volcanic activity in the past, because that makes it a lot less likely there will be some in the future. The forces responsible for eruptions are moving westward, away from Yucca Mountain. “Don’t buy property in Bishop, California, in 40,000 years,” explains my guide, a senior engineer at Yucca Mountain.”
    

    I am not a geologist, but I do have a passing familiarity with some of these issues, and I find this entire argument to be highly implausible.

    Earthquakes don’t do much damage 1,000 feet beneath the surface? Is this a real scientific determination? I’m under the impression that earthquakes result from tectonic forces arising miles underground, and 1,000 feet is pretty close to the surface by those standards, which leads to quite a different conclusion when using the whip analogy, if nothing else. (Anyway, that is an analogy I’ve never heard before and am rather skeptical of.)

    The volcanic activity argument is even less plausible to me. Large areas of that part of the country have undergone volcanic activity in the geologically recent past (including the area around Bishop, CA). Saying that it’s “good news” that the Yucca Mountain area has been volcanically active in the recent past strikes me as ridiculous on its face, given how little we know about this subject overall. Anyway, I know for a fact that indeed there are credible scientists concerned about this issue. It is not a settled matter. There is a risk; the question is how severe is it.

    This comment was written by pmbryant.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
18. lucia Writes:
    August 18th, 2004 at 11:42 am

    >>which leads to quite a different conclusion when using the whip analogy, if nothing else. (Anyway, that is an analogy I’ve never heard before and am rather skeptical of.)

    Oh! I know about the whip trivia!. I’d heard the a whip makes the cracking sound because part of it is moving faster than the speed of sound in air. (This would make sense— a solid moving above the speed of sound will, in many cases, create a sonic boom.)

    I googled to see if anyone had confirmed this. It appears someone may have. Visit this page and this one.
    So, the tip of the whip is, in fact, moving much faster than the base of the whip.

    The fact that the tip of a whip moves really fast is not controversial.

    However, the fact that a whip tip can move much, much faster than the base doesn’t automatically imply the surface moves much faster than the material below during an earthquake. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t

    I’d like to hear more evidence that the analogy holds –other than the idea that the scientifically illiterate don’t understand earthquakes.

    I’m fairly literate scientifically– but my area is not geology or earthquakes. Few people study earthquakes in depth. (I know lots of chemists who one can wow by mentioning that the reason whips crack is they break the speed of sound. I don’t consider them scientifically illiterate for not knowing this piece of fluid mechanics trivia.)

    Some explanation, or link to information, or reference might be helpful.

    This comment was written by lucia.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
19. David N. G. Writes:
    December 1st, 2004 at 1:01 am

    So here’s the deal, as far as I have researched it. Yucca Mountain is indeed riddled with cracks and faults, however, the reposity is built around the major faults and seismic lines. The cracks, which are indeed present in the volcanic tuft of the site, can almost be considered harmless due to their infrequency and short length, which no doubt many will say is a poor arguement based on the fact that a crack is a crack. Well, it is not. The reposity is built into bedrock, which means that the cracks haven’t traveled. Granted, there could be a leak from the storage containers, but where would it go? This isn’t liquid radioactive material we are dealing with, it is a solid, dry waste. But ground water swells could contact it, if infact the containers did rupture? Well, yes and no. Groundwater could possibly contact the “spill”, but only if the groundwater swelled up 1000′, which is the distance above the aquifer which feeds this great area everyone talks about. A swell of 1000′ of water is millions and millions of gallons of water, and, I’d like to point out once more, this area is an arrid environment. Meaning, little water. O.K. So the aquifer could be, as the term goes, recharged from a more moist environment. True, but I’d also like to point out that there are currently only a few places in our country which are not suffering from over exhaustion of ground water resources- and only because they have active regeneration plans. So basically what I’m telling you is that we control the possible groundwater swells int he area? No. We do not control them: they are most definitely being depleted much faster than we would like. On to the issue of earthquakes, however. What causes damage from earthquakes is the resonance of the vibrations in structures. And, the intensity. Well here’s the deal. The resonance is only a large concern when in bedrock, such as this site. A majority of damage in other areas is due to liquifaction– the ground under structures becomes soupy due to the shaking, much like making a pile of sand in a bucket, and beating the side of it to make the pile level. So the resonance is what causes the damage in this situation, O.K., we got it, so what about the resonance, then? Well here’s the deal. The thing about bedrock is it is essentially one piece. Not quite, but essentially, so it moves together. Doesn’t liquify, don’t jsut “fall apart”. And these holding structures (the containers for the waste) are too small to resonate significantly, and the resonance they would experience from a mag. 2 earthquake is so weak, the structures would hold no problem. Just like all the earthquakes your houses experience every year. What earthquakes, you say? Exactly. Every place on this earth experiences earthquakes, just not as intense of ones. We aren’t talking about the mag. 6 and up earthquakes of Cali. and Japan, we are talking mag 2 and below. Doesn’t seem like much of a difference? well, each “magnitude” differs by a factor of 30. that means, a mag 3 is 30x more powerful than 2, and 4 is 900x that of 2. which means a magnitude 2 earthquake is about 1/180,000 the strength of these fairly destructive mag 6’s in the west. Which also means that saying earthquakes happening “all the time” is a good thing is just wrong. you could have lots of mag 2’s with the stress of a mag 5 on the plate, and those 2 wouldn’t help a thing. But, one other thing: the fact that Yucca mountain is sacred land? I mean, nice, but if you really want to bring that arguement in…
    I suppose, since I am a faithful christian, that since God created earth, and He is the holiest of holy, his creation, too, is holy. Which means, to a christian, all of earth is sacred. O.K., so people may be tainted, but if we can harm less land by putting the waste in one sacred location as opposed to another, let’s do it. And for those wondering about state vs. feds, well, it’s like this. Essentially, feds do what they want, but it comes down to the courts. If the Supreme court rules it aok, it is so, because as this country works, the nation decides what is best for the nation, and the states decide what they can do within the guidelines of the federal gov’t, but of course you knew that. The thing is that if the S.C. rules it O.K. to deposit it in Nevada, then it is (and nevada has indeed filed a suit against the fed.) because the way the courts work, your appeals go to the surpeme court which has final say, and all state vs. state or state vs. federal cases immediately start at the supreme court, and thus have nowhere to go after the decision is made.

    This comment was written by David N. G..
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
20. Joe H Writes:
    December 22nd, 2004 at 8:39 pm

    If you’re not familiar with the basin and range region of the US it stretches roughly from its current westernmost extension as the Sierra Nevada Range east across most of Utah. Simplified, it is a series of tilted fault blocks, with the tilted up side the peaks of mountain ranges and the tilted down side the basins. These fault blocks vary in length and size. It is quite likely that no area within the basin and range region is entirely free from the threat of earthquakes and Yucca Mountain is within a region that does receive significant seismic activity (see map at http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm). The numerous hot springs in the surrounding region also raise questions of latent volcanic activity. Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain) also has a lot of info and links about the site. Two other sites were considered in the final analysis but I suspect both were quickly discarded mostly for political reasons. Hanford, Washington was already a political hotspot and the choice of Deaf Smith County, Texas, although probably the best choice (more centrally located, less difficult to reach geographically), would not sit well with then VP George Bush’s home state constituents. Yucca Mountain is probably the worst of the three choices but since it sits on military land in a sparsely populated county in a sparsely populated state it, erm, “won”.

    This comment was written by Joe H.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!