Skull Valley
As BLM contemplates its role regarding the Skull Valley nuclear parking lot, I'll link to a previous post I wrote on the nukes issue. Also, I'll attach a letter I wrote to the NY Times in response to an editorial it ran last year.
In “Nuclear Waste Site in Utah, ” (Sept. 16), you endorse moving spent nuclear fuel rods to Skull Valley, Utah, 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, because “[t]he site seems safe enough.”
I doubt the Times is advocating a broad what-the-heck-seems-safe-enough-to-us standard for environmental and nuclear policy issues. Instead, it is likely just acting parochially.
Nuclear waste issues are complex and significant. They require study and deliberation. For example, rather than simply dumping the problem on the West, recycling should be considered. Over 90% of the material is recyclable, and, as things currently stand, the amount of material generated exceeds the combined capacity of Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain.
If disposal is best and if an alternative to Yucca Mountain is needed, the relative merits of various locations should be studied. Environmental and geological considerations should be examined, as well as security issues like routing-safety and emergency-response scenarios. Some places are better suited than others for disposal, and that should be a basis for decision – not that one site (picked because it has tribal sovereignty) “seems safe enough.”
Moving the stuff across the country, to park it in the open air west of the Wasatch Front, is a staggeringly bad idea, and it should be rejected. But, I also hasten to add that Yucca Mountain isn't much better for Utah (given the longer transportation routes through the state). Utah needs to build a coalition with other western states (e.g., Nevada comes to mind) and force a more creative, comprehensive solution.
In “Nuclear Waste Site in Utah, ” (Sept. 16), you endorse moving spent nuclear fuel rods to Skull Valley, Utah, 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, because “[t]he site seems safe enough.”
I doubt the Times is advocating a broad what-the-heck-seems-safe-enough-to-us standard for environmental and nuclear policy issues. Instead, it is likely just acting parochially.
Nuclear waste issues are complex and significant. They require study and deliberation. For example, rather than simply dumping the problem on the West, recycling should be considered. Over 90% of the material is recyclable, and, as things currently stand, the amount of material generated exceeds the combined capacity of Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain.
If disposal is best and if an alternative to Yucca Mountain is needed, the relative merits of various locations should be studied. Environmental and geological considerations should be examined, as well as security issues like routing-safety and emergency-response scenarios. Some places are better suited than others for disposal, and that should be a basis for decision – not that one site (picked because it has tribal sovereignty) “seems safe enough.”
Moving the stuff across the country, to park it in the open air west of the Wasatch Front, is a staggeringly bad idea, and it should be rejected. But, I also hasten to add that Yucca Mountain isn't much better for Utah (given the longer transportation routes through the state). Utah needs to build a coalition with other western states (e.g., Nevada comes to mind) and force a more creative, comprehensive solution.
posted by steve u. at 4/28/2006
Subscribe
4 Comments:
"Building a coalition with other western states" would be easier if we had another senator from Utah. Most states have two.
I'm with you on Skull Valley.
What's your take on this bifurcated income tax system compromise that the MSM is talking up? It seems like it doesn't overcome your concern with added expense and difficulty of administration.
I'm interested, but I do have administrative concerns. This wouldn't seem like a horribly complex thing to do (just add a simple and true flat tax option for those who want it), but details can prove to be tricky things. I disagree with the instantly dismissive editorial I saw in the Trib (arguing that this would only add work by forcing people to calculate under both systems); nonsense -- if they don't want to check out the alternatives, they don't have to; if they do want to compare the options, they could calculate the flat tax option in 30 seconds with a calculator once they have their AGI from the current method.
I really do not faver a flat tax based upon a percentage (%) of income. This penalizes those of us who have worked for years and have built a good income. A family with MANY children in school currently pays little if any state taxes. A married couple without kids subsidizes the large families. Why not propose a fixed amount tax that EVERY household pays an equal amount? That way it is a fair tax to everyone.
<< Home