>The anti Yucca plan was based on ignoring science.
???
Did you really write that?
The anti-Yucca in Nevada is *not* anti-nuclear; it's not even NIMBY.
The law to choose a dump specified that every site on the list was to be evaluated, and that the dump *shall* be built at the safest site on the list.
Not built if a site is safe, but at the *safest* of the sites to be considered.
Guess how many sites were on the list. (if you guess 2 or more, you have no idea what you're talking about.
So after being told that the site was coming here whether it was safe or not, some people got upset.
I have no problem with a long term nuclear storage facility that close to me. I *do* have a problem with the gang of idiots running that site running anything with chemicals more dangerous than bubble soap.
Over a million dollars of damage in an earthquake . . . to their on-site building studying earthquake safety.
And how does the 100 year water level compare to the proposed location of the material? (known for 20 or 30 years).
A site there is welcome. A site run by those morons under Senator Bennet's rules is another matter.
hawk