Sorry, I don't buy it. 'Worst case scenario' arguments have proven to be
b.s. from Pompeii to the Titanic to the Space Shuttle. The truth more likely
is that nobody really knows just how bad it could get. There's always some
factor or combination of factors that the experts were too educated to take
into account.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you wanted to try to build a
nuclear plant in SoCal now that the media would be saturated with those and
other images and stories and it would become a political impossibility, if
nothing else.

As for 'it CAN'T leach out', see the above. There were a large number of
people whose life's work has been in the nuclear industry that had grave
concerns about the integrity of the Yucca Mt. program, and I for one would
rather join them in wanting to ere on the side of caution.

Cya,
Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bange" <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Gas time line: nuclear nonsense

>
> Part of the cost-effectiveness equation is liability. Do some research on
> the effects of the Chernobyl incident. Then transpose those effects to a
> heavily populated area like Southern California and you can see why nobody
> wants to take on the responsibility, legally or ethically.

Huh? You can't transpose Chernobyl to ANYWHERE in the US. We don't build
graphite-shielded reactors here. If you want to see what a 98% meltdown
looks like HERE, check out 3 mile island. THAT'S a worst-case scenario.

As for the Yucca Mt. foolishness, I think that any program that has even the
> slightest possibility of poisoning the entire American Southwest, Mexico
> and
> the western coastal waters of the Americas should be an obvious no-go.

Vitrified (mixed with molted glass) waste doesn't leach out, so it CAN'T
poison the "entire American Southwest". A 5-ton blob of glass buried under a
mountain is far safer than the NATURAL radon gas leaking into basements all
across the country.