Due to the lack of funds, scheduled testing on the casks used to transport nuclear waste will not be performed. But even without the testing, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the casks. An estimated 3,000 tons of nuclear waste a year will pass through 45 states in its way to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
The actions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are nothing less than gambling with the lives of more than 11 million U.S. citizens.
4 comments:
What happens when the government approves the budget for the tests and the same nuclear waste has to pass through the same states, this time with a much larger price tag with all the added testing costs? I'm all for safety, especially when it comes to nuclear waste, but is it a bit much to say that they are gambling with lives when really it's just all about money??
I don't like the idea of all that waste coming along the I15 corridor in Southern Utah, but I realize that it has to be placed somewhere and from what I have heard and read Yucca mountain is a very good spot for the waste to be kept. Its remoteness and geological make-up are part of what is what makes it a good choice. Harry Reid ,senator from Nevada, has been trying in vain to get it [Yucca] removed from consideration for the waste, but I don't see it going anywhere but in the West and this is I guess as good as spot as any.
-1 for four spelling mistakes in Joe's post.
There are two issues here: risk analysis and public choice.
The containers will never be 100% safe - nothing is. But I don't even want an evaluation of how risky they are. What I'd like is a list that details lives saved per dollars spent. If testing the containers is down somewhere near dying from anaphylactic shock from bee stings, then I'm probably OK with it. My guess is that it probably is: personal automobile travel is the biggest source of unalleviated risk in our society.
As to public choice, this says that small vocal minorities can have political power out of proportion to their voting presences; this coming at the expense of large silent majorities. The reason is that the costs (benefits) are focused on the minority, while the benefits (costs) are diffused over the majority. I wonder in this case if we're not hearing enough from the vast majority of American people that want this problem dealt with and finished.
Perhaps an alternative approach for the government is to post a performance bond - an explicit monetary statement of how much they will fork over to people in this area from Fort Knox if they screw this up.
hmmmm wigotneszparki wytryski
Post a Comment