“Our freedoms can
only
be maintained by the advancement of technologies that serve mankind—
not
advancing technology puts Freedom at Risk and
our freedom is
threatened because we
don't take the time to
participate in it” GJD
Unfortunately our world does not recognize "superstar scientists" as they do entertainers.
Our country needs a new PROGRAM . . "The Annual Academia Awards" Identifying Americas scientists to Americas Citizens!
Our hats are off to
our
Contributing Scientists for their
"superstar science"!
The misrepresentation to
Nevadans about the science, safety,
and transportation for the Yucca Mountain Project is ASTOUNDING!
Chuck Muth, toots the truth . . . took the words right out of my mouth
next time, I'll pull his batteries!
Gary Duarte, USNE
February 27, 2008
WHEN IT COMES TO YUCCA, WE’RE OUT OF LOUX
The state of Nevada’s knee-jerk, one-sided anti-Yucca campaign was again being sold at a forum yesterday, but a funny thing happened on the way to market: Few were buying it.
Organized by Dr. Ty Cobb (the assemblyman’s father) and Dr. John Scire, the discussion was held at the Prospector’s Club in Harrah’s Hotel & Casino in Reno. Among those in the overflow crowd of about 60 people were some heavy hitters from the business community and Chamber of Commerce, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, representatives from Congressman Dean Heller’s office and Sen. John Ensign’s office, and a few members of the media.
Headlined “Re-Appraising Yucca: Is It Time for Neutral Assessment of the Proposed Repository?” the discussion included the usual adamant opposition by Bob Loux, the government’s taxpayer-funded propagandist, who threw out enough red herrings at the forum to feed a third world country.
Only this time, there were folks in the audience who challenged Loux’s assertions and “facts.”
For example, Dr. Cobb and Dr. Scire “argued that a new appraisal (of Yucca) would find that waste can be safely transported by armed guards to the Nevada site,” reports Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Ed Vogel this morning. “Waste stored in Yucca Mountain would be far more secure from terrorists than continuing to store it at 73 nuclear power plants around the country, they concluded.”
Loux was also corrected for claiming that there were no financial benefits available to Nevada when in fact, millions of dollars worth of financial benefits have ALREADY been funneled into the state, thanks to the Yucca Mountain Project. And the spigot is still open despite Harry Reid’s best effort to shut it off.
Loux also incorrectly asserted that if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are elected in November, they’d “kill” Yucca Mountain.
Apparently Mr. Loux missed a day or two in American civics class. The fact is, Congress passed the nuclear storage bill, and Congress can trump any president with a 2/3 vote. It’s right there in the Constitution. And considering the fact that there are 49 states vs. Nevada, when it comes to where the nuclear waste repository will be located there’s every possibility that Congress will keep Yucca on the table no matter who is elected president.
Loux also launched into his patented “the Department of Energy is incompetent” routine, while claiming the technology at Yucca Mountain is “deficient.”
I couldn’t help but wonder whether Mr. Loux had a degree in engineering and nuclear physics which allowed him the kind of background and expertise to reach such conclusions. Get this. As it turns out, he has an “Education” degree and majored in “History.” Hmmmm. And that makes him an expert on nuclear waste storage, how?
It doesn’t. In fact, Mr. Loux has NO expertise, training, experience or education whatsoever to make him an authority on whether or not the Yucca Mountain project is “deficient.”
Hey, here’s an idea. Once this Yucca thing is resolved, let’s put Mr. Loux in charge of the space program! Or maybe even the Mayo Clinic. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
The fact is, Bob Loux is a highly paid government employee whose job is to oppose Yucca Mountain…period. This is what he does for a living. His opinions are bought and paid for. He’s not objective. He doesn’t give straight, unbiased information. Bob Loux a biased, public relations flack. A government propagandist. And clearly his Chicken Little routine is starting to wear thin with a lot of Nevadans, as evidenced by the admittedly unscientific vote taken at the conclusion of yesterday’s forum.
By a show of hands, Dr. Cobb asked how many people agreed with Bob Loux and thought Nevada should continue blindly opposing Yucca Mountain. Five people.
He then asked how many people thought Yucca was inevitable and therefore Nevada should drop its opposition and begin negotiating for benefits. Seven people.
Finally, Dr. Cobb asked how many people thought Nevada should take a more neutral position on Yucca Mountain and begin weighing both sides of the issue. The rest of the room. Including yours truly.
There are two sides to every story. For the last two decades, Nevadans have pretty much only heard Bob Loux’s side. If yesterday’s forum is any indicator, we may soon get to know…the rest…of the story.
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
Environmentalists need to realize that, for the bulk of our electricity, the choice is nuclear power or coal - and unrestrained coal burning would be an environmental disaster. . . . The waste from nuclear plants must be isolated for a fairly long time - but not as long as many think - only a few hundred years, if the used fuel is properly recycled. It can be handled with essentially no impact on the general public or the environment. Not so the millions of tons of waste each year from a coal-powered plant.
“What about radiation from nuclear plants? Not a problem. It has been known for a long time that coal plants put more radioactivity into the atmosphere (from trace impurities in the coal) than nuclear plants do, even when more than 95 percent of the fly ash is precipitated, and vastly more when it is not. This is not, however, a reason to object to coal - its radiation is trivial compared with what we get from natural sources.
“Other energy sources have their special applications, but in the future, nuclear power will be the main workhorse. There's just no other way for humanity to get enough of the clean and safe power it will need over the next few thousand years.”
- Physicist Gerald E. Marsh and nuclear reactor physicist George S. Stanford of the National Center for Public Policy ResearchBelow is A
Position Paper Prepared by
the SRS Community Reuse Organization,
Aiken, SC
This PDF document is
posted with permission
To download this 12
page PDF document right click on the cover page below (save target as)
THE STATE of
NEVADA CONTINUES
ANTI YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROGRAMS!
Jump to Governor Letter
Allocating some 4 million to the cause in 2001 . . . they continue to
misrepresent the science that designed Yucca Mountain Repository and mislead the
citizens of the state! During former Governor Guinn's administration the
state created an "Agency for Nuclear Projects", and it employs a full time
director. Well actually, it's an ANTI NUCLEAR agency targeted at the
Yucca Mountain nuclear repository site.
If the State of Nevada "fairly"
represented the scientific studies on Yucca Mountain to the citizens
of Nevada instead of misrepresentation, the "people" would be
empowered with the scientific truth to form their own conclusions.
Unfortunately the politicians and media do not present the science. Study
some of the facts on our
YUCCA NEI link and also the NEI website link
on the VIP Links tab.
To
exemplify something about snafu's:
G. Duarte
We would like to bring to point
that most discussions, comments, media coverage and political references
refer to Yucca Mountain as a Nuclear Waste DUMP. Also note that the
aforementioned articles usually are challenging the safety, positive proof
and accuracy of the facilities science. These same people should apply such
accuracy to their publications, comments references!
If positive accuracy is an imperative concern from the people, politics and media challenging Yucca Mountain, then THEY should APPLY such ACCURACY to themselves in describing the facility as they are using an "incorrect" terminology. The dictionary description of a DUMP: To release or throw down in a large mass to empty (material) out of a container or vehicle to empty out (a container or vehicle), as by overturning or tilting it. None of this dictionary description of the word DUMP accurately describes the documented plan for nuclear waste placed in the Yucca Mountain facility.
REPOSITORY: Is a place where things may be put for safekeeping, a warehouse, a museum, a burial vault; a tomb, etc. This is the proper, correct, accurate term for the nuclear waste casks destined for Yucca Mountain. So, anytime you read or see a publication referring to Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste DUMP it is grammatically incorrect, in-accurate, un-truthful, misleading, etc. If scientific accuracy is a requirement of Yucca Mountain then grammatical accuracy SHOULD be a requirement of those people talking about it!
The Current Yucca Snafu: Peter G. Shaw
In early 2005 the press and “politicians” once again ceased on Yucca Mountain “falsifications” of data via e-mails, etc. In checking into this current snafu this is what we found. There were three things that were going on: 1) a date change or input needed for the updated model from the old version. (This was not even outside DOE regulations) 2) Some emails that were off the record but were negative of the model. 3) Some kind of procedural documentation of sources for the new model.
This is what we found; users at the Yucca site updated software to run the (long-term stability modeling programs I suspect). In doing so, they filled-in bogus information during the software registration (like we all do, as it is not relevant to anyone but the software manufacturer. The “model” is what is important, not the software registration information and the model was not changed.
The documentation (of the model software?) had some irregularities when viewed individually, but due to the dynamic nature of the model to begin with, anytime one looks at one data point out of the context of the entire question being modeled, the results can be misleading. This is the equivalent of noticing barrels on the side of the freeway and saying “Hey, those shouldn’t be there’….without noticing the freeway is under construction. So, when confronted with a question about documentation that seems inconsistent, one must ALWAYS remember that the audience is made up of attorneys…
The whole line of questioning of the “alleged falsifications” is a farce. The Yucca Mountain opponents and politicians have convinced the masses that paranoia is the right road to take. Until the Yucca proponents can prove scientifically, without any room for error, that the site will be stable for the next 10,000 years, and provide hyper-accurate detail for any time frame between now and 10,000 years….like say, February 10, 8005. This requirement as it has been sold is completely unattainable and therefore is used simply to throw everyone off the trail…a red herring. No energy production waste-product on the planet has ever been required to provide 10,000 years of absolute safety.
While we are
preventing the establishment of a safe nuclear waste repository for America
(within all logical reason), some 32 other countries throughout the world
are building Nuclear Power Plants so, we are NOT and never will eliminate
nuclear waste, logically we should put our science to work SOLVING the
problem not hindering its establishment!