Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Yucca Mtn transport issues



I agree that the described risks as noted
heretofore can be designed out (at least in very large
part). What I haven't seen is an assessment as to
whether or not the cross-country transport of spent
rods makes materials for a "dirty-bomb" more
accessible to bad guys. Or, could a truck itself be
easily converted into a dirty bomb with the use of a
shoulder-launched missile? Also, will the 1000th
shipment be as rigorously protected as the 10th? Will
a future Congress decide that it's not REALLY
necessary to spend so much on safety? Will the Yucca
Mtn facility have the same liability exemption that
the nuclear power industry has?
Frankly, for me that's always been the real
sticking point about nuclear power plants. If
operating (and the emphasis here is on "operating" as
opposed to "as designed") nuclear plants have as
little risk as their proponents claim, why is a
liability exemption still necessary? Why are potential
damages caused by these plants for all practical
purposes uninsurable when the insurance industry (I
believe) still writes liability policies for other
generating plants as well as chemical plants. Since
insurance companies don't make money if they don't
write policies, isn't there a "market judgement" here
on the safety of nuclear power? Please point out the
faulty logic here. Thanks. John Barrere



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com