Is Yucca Mt really the right place?

Has any of these brain surgeons who decided on Nv for nuclear waste, taken into consideration that Nv has gone from having not only rare but distant desert rumbles caused by earthquakes, but they have shorten in time span, and are becomeing more severe doing damage to quite a few properties. Shouldn't it be of some concern that it may be possibe our buried waste could somehow surface? If they say no, or it wouldn't be a big deal, do we believe them.? Of course they would never lie to us? Why are we letting them take advantage of our ignorance? Or am I out of the ball park? Just curious.

Is Yucca Mt really the right place?
Until we have better technology that can produce energy from nuclear fission without such long-range toxic side effects, we are behaving even more selfishly than we are about the national debt. The national debt will be a problem that will have to be solved only two generations from now. Nuclear waste will remain toxic for in excess of 90,000 years. Even if Yucca Mountain is not completely eroded away in 90,000 years, how arrogant is it to think that the three-headed superchild/puppy hybrid that digs it up will have any idea what language English is, and will be able to read the sign that says "DO NOT OPEN UNTIL X-MAS YEAR 93,502!"





But then, supply side economics gives incentives to make money right now, not to invest for a future beyond five years from now. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet, especially when the secret ingedient is Strontium 90 with just a dash love and a hint of MSG!
Reply:No matter where you want put the nuclear waste, you will find a bunch of NIMBY's who will find excuses, no matter how lame, to block it.





Everyone wants electricity, and everyone wants someone else to deal with the consequences.





I've been to the area around Yucca mountain. I can't think of a better place to put nuclear waste.





For those of you who still believe the 95,000 year myth, here is an article by Patrick Moore you may wish to read:





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...





You'd have to be a pretty lame environmentalist wannabe if you don't know that Patrick Moore founded Greenpeace. He basically says he was wrong 30 years ago, and nuclear is better than coal or oil. James Lovelock and Stewart Brand, other environmentalist pioneers you probably haven't heard of, agree. Moore goes on to explain that nuclear waste loses 99.9% of its potency after 40 year, and with new fuel recycling techniques, 95% of nuclear waste is reusable.





On the bright side, you can still try to save the whales.