Nimby

  1. With a Senate vote on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump site coming soon, I thought I'd ask for the opinions of others (Nevadans and Non-Nevadans alike) about transporting nuclear waste 1,000s of miles to a repository in a state which does not produce nuclear waste. Nevada has the 3rd highest number of earthquakes in the Nation and just last week a quake, registering 4.0 on the Richter Scale, was centered at Yucca Mountain. The site is located just 75 miles from Las Vegas.

    Don't worry about offending me, I've already come to the conclusion that so long as it's "Not In My BackYard" (NIMBY) much of the public doesn't give a hoot about the ethics behind storing another States waste elsewhere.

    Do you support the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump site, scheduled to be located 75 miles north of Las Vegas?

    Should States which generate nuclear waste be required to deal with this themselves?
    Last edit by Fgr8Out on Jun 18, '02
    •  
  2. 2 Comments

  3. by   LasVegasRN
    My simple little theory or thinking is if you are the state producing the nuclear waste, your state should take the responsibility for storing it. Might be too simplistic, but that's just how it should seem to me.
  4. by   I1tobern
    Yucca Mountain has been a bad idea from the get go. Back in my MBA days, I did a research paper about this stuff. I don't remember the article, but a school girl (High school, I think) did a research study on Yucca Mountain and provided some scary information like ground water leakage and the problem with quakes in the area.

    I too, believe if your state makes it, they should have to store it. I live in Georgia, so we've got Vogel. I don't think anyone really thought of this while they were building all these bombs, and wanting nuclear power plants. Heck, just look what happened Hanaford (sp?) in Washington State near the Columbia River. Its a mess and will continue to be one for several thousand years.

close