Comments on: We Have A HOT Deal For You!

By: Gordon

Gordon — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:12:03 +0000

No Nukes In Idaho pretty well sums it up.

Oh, and one more thing: What to do with a nuclear plant after it outlives its short usefulness? Encase it in concrete (which doesn’t really block radiation), close off a few hundred acres in all directions, and wait a few thousand years?
As for the Editor comment ” *Clean up and safe disposal* is essential before any more nuke waste can be generated,” yep. Unfortunately, there ain’t no such animal.

By: Cal

Cal — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:02:04 +0000

How about combining all the out-of-state investment in one irresistable package? The Avalon/Tamarack Nuclear Power Plant/Enrichment/Disposal Site, Ski Resort & Film Studio!

By: NoNukesInIdaho

NoNukesInIdaho — Fri, 09 May 2008 06:53:06 +0000

I agree with the Guardian. I am very pro-nuclear, so long as:
1. They don’t burden future generations with any waste issues.
2. So long as, they do lifelong follow-up on all workers to insure there are not the normal long term health effects well known with radiation exposure, cancer being the best known, but by far not the only one.
3. So long as, they pay the full cost of their endeavor and do not push off the cost to taxpayers, full cost means, construction, operation, insurance, waste management (See #1 above.)
4. So long as, they can provide a service that is economically comparable to other energy options.
5. So long as, there are no unintended side effects in fuel processes such as lung cancer from uranium mill tailings anywhere they obtain their fuel.
6. So long as, they can guarantee the radioactive material won’t fall into the wrong hands.
7. So long as, they can guarantee that no radioactive accident can take place, and just to be sure they have the financial resources to clean it up themselves based on the cost of past accidents which couldn’t happen either.

8. So long as, the DOE the department with a spick and span record of doing the right thing, the first time, can certify that no level of death and illness associated with nuclear power, which of course they don’t. They expect a certain level of increased cancer for every single nuclear plant (assuming no accidents and no excess exposure issues.)
9. So long as they don’t idle many thousands of acres of farm land to make room for it and provide water to keep the thing cool.
10. So long as, they don’t heat up our lakes and rivers killing fish and other life.
11. So long as, if there is a problem they can issue a re-call on the item as is done in the standardized automotive industry where they build hundreds of millions of the same item and still have screw ups which at their worst might only kill a few people.

I am sure there are other important things missing, but I don’t need the industry to be perfect to support them. if they could get even close to these I would be a real fan.

Besides we all know we can rely on Larry Craig to tell us the truth. Anyone with his obvious upstanding (though be it a wide stance) moral values. Looks like he must have been giving our governor lessons (probably how he hurt his hip!)

By: dog

dog — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:44:19 +0000

The reason Idaho is so attractive to the nuke industry is because it’s politics is dominated by
ultra right wing Republicans. These guys will lick any boot for election money so they can promise “high wage jobs” to their moron constituents who barely eke out a living wage.

I hope the potato growing community in Eastern Idaho realizes that a nuke accident by a private company will doom their product on the world market. The dairy industry can kiss their hind tit
goodbye too.

A private nuke plant, like the mining industry, will “cut and run” in the event of an accident and hide behind the bankruptcy laws, leaving a huge poision environmental mess behind. If the Federal Government cannot clean up the radioactive mess at INEL how will a private company cope in that event?

By: Dr Peter Rickards DPM

Dr Peter Rickards DPM — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:50:48 +0000

Hi Dave and all,
Interesting analogy! I am not sure what anti-nukers were trying to cut research in nuke waste disposal, but it wasn’t me.
I bet it was pesky old Nevada people trying to stop the dumping in their state. I really can’t blame them though. Dear conservative and pro-nuclear Idaho Congressman Stallings was serving 20 years ago. He told our group about the status of legislation of high level disposal. Richard Stalling said “Three states were identified by scientists as geologically potential high level waste sites, Washington, Texas, and Nevada. Washington and Texas are politically strong, so they removed their states from the study. We now openly refer to it as the ‘Screw Nevada’ bill” I think that is why Nevada is flexing the “State’s Rights”, and fighting back. Last summer or so, the Nevada lawyers found a great quote from the US Geological Survey team, that is in charge of verifying Nevada’s dump water infiltration status.
The one USGS “scientist” told the other “I can’t believe they want more documentation! If they want more documentation, I WILL BE HAPPY TO MAKE MORE UP”!!! I wish Idaho would fight for our State’s Right not to be nuked into oblivion.

By: Dr Peter Rickards DPM

Dr Peter Rickards DPM — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:03:19 +0000

Sorry to hear The Guardian supports nuclear power, but at least you are demanding a waste dump for the fuel rods we are already stuck with.
If Yucca Mt Nevada nuke dump is ever forced open, against the will of Nevada citizens, it will be overfilled with the backlog of high level waste. Yes, we will have to force future waste on another small state, hey, like Idaho! Maybe they will make us “do it like the French” and just dump it on site, in glass logs, in shallow graves. Yah, that’ll last 240,000 years!
The Bush push to double our nuke plants already means more toxic uranium mining in Idaho, to feed the French fetish for fuel and uranium hexafluoride. When Craig and company aren’t in the men’s room, they have volunteered Idaho for the GNEP, or Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. That means we import the world’s spent fuel to reprocess and do the dirty work here. That buries more residual waste onsite, while they are leaving most the dumped plutonium they promised to remove right here in Idaho, dumped over our water, in a flood zone. BRILLIANT!

EDITOR NOTE–Anti nuke groups put pressure on congress to cut funding for research on nuclear waste disposal 20 years ago (iron renriched basalt for example). Sort of like not allowing distribution of condoms for fear of people having sex. Clean up and safe disposal is essential before any more nuke waste can be generated.

By: Taxed Out!

Taxed Out! — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:19:22 +0000

It seems like there was another French investment in the state. Some place near Cascade? Did that investment cause some fallout?

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:51:57 +0000

Anybody ever wonder *why* all these nuke promoters want to build their stuff in Idaho?
Cuz they don’t want it anywhere near their homes?
Or is it just cuz they figure Idaho doesn’t have enough voters to put any pressure on D.C. to make the companies behave?
Or because land is cheaper here?
Or because Idaho probably will bribe them (tax breaks, etc.) to build here?
Or because they think Idahoans are stupid enough to say Yes! Yes! Yes! to any plan that promises to bring in jobs, regardless of the “down” side?

Probable correct answer: All of the above.

By: see stars in the sky

see stars in the sky — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:38:34 +0000

And what about the proposed nuclear power plant near Bruneau? That location has the potential to destroy the dark skies for the Observatory at Bruneau Dunes State Park which houses the only publically operated and funded, open to the public, Observatory in Idaho.
That facility will also produce nuclear waste along with the light pollution. How much polution can we stand here? Do we have to grow toes out of the tops of our heads before someone stops to think that maybe this could harm the people and the planet? Why is Idaho such a big target for these companies all of a sudden? Could our laws be lacking in something that other states have already figured out? Ooo, don’t tell Idaho and let tham keep the nuclear waste there!

By: DG

DG — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:16:11 +0000

Ahhh, leave it to the Frence to bring socialized energy to Idaho. Areva has a long history of mistakes including dumping millions of gallons of radioactive waste in the ocean. I guess in this case they will have to dump it in a river or aquifer. Sweet! Anyone have kids or grandkids they care about?