Editor,
Laguna Beach has started the important bipartisan process of facing the U.S. stalemate on where to put nuclear spent fuel that must be guarded for thousands of years due to its deadly radiation. The Laguna Beach resolution passed Dec. 16 and calls for the passage of the Senate Bill 2326 that will force nuclear utilities to have approval of the NRC as well as state and cities within 50 miles of a reactor. Currently the utilities must listen, but can then do what they want. We must all push for this bill.
The current NRC solution is to leave over 1,600 tons of fuel at San Onofre for 60 years or indefinitely.
The spent fuel must be moved now. What we have learned is that the Nevada never wanted 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste stored at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. The land was taken by the federal government and the court battles continue.
No one wants the deadly fuel unless they are too poor to protest.
SCE has agreed with the Laguna Beach resolution and has met with Let Laguna Vote. They want the deadly fuel moved from San Onofre too.
What are the answers? No plan is perfect, but Let Laguna Vote.com has a plan and we need stakeholders to sign up on line and show up and force our government to keep its promise to take the fuel and protect Southern California from a disaster that would be forever.
Let Laguna Vote advocates a California interim solution on a California military base in the desert, exclusively for decommissioned California nuclear waste only and therefore protected from sabotage and human errors of indifference with the tax payer’s dollars by our own wonderful military soldiers.
After 40 years of producing profit, the old reactors are finally forcing us to deal with the centuries ahead of taxpayer dollars protecting the deadly nuclear fuel waste.
Come to Edison’s community engagement panel to hear what the bipartisan policy council has to say, Jan. 27, 6-9:30 p.m., San Juan Capistrano Community Center, 25925 Camino del Avion.
Marni Magda, Laguna Beach
What Marni doesn’t say is that anti-nukes were against storing used nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mt. site in Nevada before any studies were complete. See this link which exposes anti-nuclear strategy circa April of 1991:
http://atomicinsights.com/anti-nuclear-movement-strategy-circa-april-1991/
This is a quote from the above article which itself is quoting material handed out by anti-nukes:
“Continue to stall until Congress gives up on the repository program and the progress grinds to a halt
Recognize that DOE itself is responsible for delays in characterizing the Yucca Mountain site
Acknowledge that Yucca Mountain is not suitable, will not be found suitable, and cannot be licensed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 60 (“the only science in the system is political science”)”
The moral of this story is that anti-nukes themselves are partially responsible for the fuel not having been moved to Yucca Mt. long ago. Anti-nukes will and have lied, exaggerated, and engaged in disingenuous hysteria and scary stories to frighten and hoodwink the unwary citizen. The fuel is NOT deadly, in fact NO member of the public has ever been harmed from the storage of used nuclear fuel in the 60 year history of commercial nuclear power. There is no proposed site to take this used fuel to other than Yucca Mt. Ask the local anti-nukes why they oppose storage at Yucca Mt., it is far better than any site in the California desert, even if such a site existed. The anti-nukes are dishonest and their true desire is to cost the nuclear industry, and rate payers through them, as much as possible so that they can then claim nuclear power is too expensive and all nuclear plants should therefore be shut down. Do NOT be fooled by their dishonesty. The anti-nukes lied and exaggerated about many aspects of San Onofre and they will continue their campaign to make America nuclear power free.
Ask yourselves also, why is a site (even though there is NO proposed site) safer from sabotage and human errors if it is in the desert (does the climate make people more careful?) rather than if it remains where it is? And our wonderful soldiers, who does Marni think is protecting our nuclear plants? These are NOT Walmart guards, these are former soldiers fresh from the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other law enforcement agencies.
Yes, SCE provided clean, safe, GHG free electric generation for 45 years and now that the anti-nukes have got their wish, we’re all paying more for our electric bills AND old GHG producing NG plants were fired up to replace the clean generation that was thrown away when SONGs was shut down, and more than 1200 folks have lost their jobs. Alas, haven’t the anti-nukes done enough harm to this state and country?
In response to David Davison’s reply: If you believe the waste is not deadly, why not store it in your backyard? Your reasoning is as unfounded as your conclusions. Yucca Mountain is not safe and cannot isolate the waste. It is a seismically active area and has been volcanically active is recent geologic history. Nevada will never allow it in our state, so best to rethink nuclear energy and what you will do with the waste, because we won’t be drinking it for you.