Yucca Mountain

Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free energy sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal energy.

But we cannot deny that nuclear power is -- and likely will remain -- an important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with the dangerous by-product of nuclear reactors is a critical question that has yet to be resolved.

In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain.

During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and ratepayers in the construction of this location.

Millions of dollars have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual obligations to nuclear utilities.

Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuels shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments.

Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now.

In 2004, a federal court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to guarantee the safety of Nevadans.

Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois -- and other states with nuclear reactors -- to send our waste to another state, transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk.

In fact, since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail, this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is he transportation hub of the Midwest.

Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca Mountain without any significant progress in moving toward a permanent solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel.

For these reasons, I believe it is no longer a sustainable federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository. Instead of re-examining the 20 year licensing process and the billions of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Among the possible alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented.

Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide federal decision-making.

First, any storage option should be supported by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents to toxic radiation.

Second, we should select a repository location through a process that develops a national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to accept nuclear waste from other states.

The flawed process by which Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly expensive endeavor of monumental proportion.

In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over and it is time to start exploring new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science.

BARACK OBAMA

United States Senator

Disappointed again

I am disappointed in our county commissioner again.

Peter Liakopoulos is shameful.

He and his wife have made the decision to move homeless vets from the center of town to the furthest outskirts of town. It is 13 miles from the Bell Vista address to the VA Clinic.

I have called reps for the DAV van service and was told they have problems getting volunteers to drive vets to their appointments now. How will they be able to find volunteers to drive the homeless into town. (A 10 mile trip one way) for any services.

Just because the property is "free" for 5-10 years, doesn't make it "free" to the town.

The buildings on that site are in need of great repair and none of them were built to code. They are a fire hazard.

If we want the homeless to be able to help themselves and to be a productive part of this community, they should be housed near the VA Clinic and JobConnect.

If we are going to "hide" our homeless vets by keeping them out of town, they will never get the assistance they deserve.

Let's not "hide" our homeless vets in a place that is unsafe, run down and so far away from all services.

Mr. Liakopoulos, shame on you. Our vets deserve much better.

CAROL PARKER

Hillary promotes class envy

When Hillary Clinton was in town, she told us that if she was elected president, she would do away with tax cuts for the rich.

Liberals like Hillary love to promote class envy, class division and class warfare. But there is a very good reason why we give tax cuts to the rich.

Hillary is on the wrong side of this issue, and Hillary is on the wrong side of history.

I am from San Diego and I have followed the news of the fire and its aftermath. Who is coming to the aid of fire victims? Individuals with lots of money, corporations with lots of money and businesses with lots of money -- that's who.

Yes, we give tax cuts to people who have lots of money. We do this so they can afford to stay in business. We do this so they can create more jobs. We do this so they can keep the economy going. And we do this so they can help the needy.

People with money produce good things for all of us. But liberals like Hillary produce nothing but fear, envy division and class warfare. I am looking forward to the day that Hillary has the same high regard for capitalism that she currently has for socialism.

GARY MARCHINKE