Northwest Voices | Letters to the Editor
Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste site
This is just another burden on the American taxpayer
The residents near Yucca Mountain don’t want nuclear waste stored there. The residents of the Tri-Cities don’t want nuclear waste stored at Hanford. [“Yucca Mountain,” Northwest Voices, Jan. 31].
Sounds like a clear case of “Not In My Back Yard.” They are both half right: There is no safe haven for nuclear waste, waste that must be kept isolated from all living things for hundreds of thousands of years.
Nuclear energy makes no sense for anyone other than the privately run utility companies, who profit from them. Besides the waste issue, there is the ever-present danger of a meltdown like what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the later of which is still leaking radioactive waste. It also costs more energy to produce nuclear power than energy derived from it, which is why all nuclear-power plants require government subsidies. Without them, they couldn’t afford to operate. And then there’s the billions of gallons of water required to cool the reactors.
Also, not one insurance company will insure nuclear power, which is why we have the Price Anderson Act, and more on us, on the American taxpayer, if there is an accident. Add to the insanity the danger of terrorists obtaining enough nuclear fission to build a dirty bomb, and even more burden on the American taxpayer to guard them.
— Christopher Anderson, Seattle
Nevada should not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste
Why should Nevada accept becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste from other states? The point shouldn’t be to find someplace out of our backyard to stash the trash; the point should be to stop making it.
Otherwise, nuclear companies’ stockholders should be made to eat it.
— Chris Nielsen, Shoreline