One of the main reasons I cannot vote for Democrats

[Buccaneer]

There are several but here's one of the main reasons:


Demo-disconnection

Planning in Boston for future blackouts





This week in Boston, the Democratic Party went on record as supporting a 20 percent cut in the nation’s supply of electricity. No plank in the party’s platform said this explicitly. But the approval on Tuesday of a platform opposing the storage of nuclear waste at a planned repository inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada, amounts to the same thing.

“We will protect Nevada and its communities from the high level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not proven to be safe by sound science,” read a plank approved by convention delegates. But without a viable option for storing spent nuclear fuels, the byproducts of plants that generate roughly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, we could before long have to begin shutting down these facilities.

Nuclear power companies currently store their spent fuels at nearly 100 temporary holding sites across the country (each of which makes a tempting potential target for terrorists), while awaiting the much delayed completion of a single, secure, exhaustively studied repository in remote Nevada. And when those temporary storage facilities reach capacity, and no Yucca Mountain is available, the reactors may have to be shut down.

Anti-nuclear activists in the Democratic Party understand this. Derailing Yucca Mountain, they hope, will effectively kill off what’s left of the nation’s nuclear energy industry. And their presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, is betting the odds that opposing the site will win him Nevada. “Rest assured, Nevada, if I’m president of the United States, Yucca Mountain will not be a repository,” Kerry not long ago declared during a Las Vegas fundraiser.

But how Kerry and his fellow Democrats plan to supplant the 20 percent of electricity potentially put at risk by their position is unknown. Nor have they explained how they intend to deal with the tons of radioactive waste now stored at less secure and suitable sites around the country. That’s because Yucca Mountain, though imperfect, remains the best storage option there is.

Also mystifying is how shutting down the nation’s nuclear power plants squares with Teresa Heinz Kerry’s call on Tuesday night for energy self-reliance. In a Kerry administration, she said, “not only will no American boy or girl go to war because of our dependence on foreign oil,” but “our economy will forever become independent of this need.” But isn’t our dependence on imported oil and natural gas only likely to grow if a President Kerry takes actions that effectively kill off an industry providing one fifth of the nation’s electricity?

Both Kerry and running mate John Edwards in fact have flip-flopped on the issue over the years, suggesting that their current opposition is patently opportunistic. In 1987, Kerry voted to fund planning for the repository. Yet today he opposes it — an echo of the senator’s vote granting President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, and later vote against funding the war once it was underway. And Edwards, too, has voted inconsistently on Yucca Mountain.

Undoubtedly, some of the dim bulbs attending the convention in Boston delude themselves that a 20 percent electricity shortfall can be made up with more federal wind and solar power subsidies. But if a political party is going to support a policy that potentially removes a power provider this significant from the nation’s already strained energy portfolio, its leaders at least have the obligation to spell out a responsible, reality-based alternative.

Copyright 2004. The Gazette.

[Draft Dodger]

"Derailing Yucca Mountain, they hope, will effectively kill off what’s left of the nation’s nuclear energy industry"

I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but that sentence seems like a pretty big leap of assumptions. If you have a hard time buying that sentence (like I do), the rest of the article pretty much falls apart.

[WussGawd]

There are several but here's one of the main reasons:

Source??? Link???

[MrBug708]

We can't import oil, we can't drill in the US....

I thought alchemy died a while back....

[Buccaneer]

We can't import oil, we can't drill in the US....

I thought alchemy died a while back....
Exactly my point. I have advocated relying more on domestic energy sources than foreign ones, esp. OPEC, since the 1970s energy "crisis". Since we have been hamstrung over the past few decades (wonder why no new power plants have not been built in decades in Calif. even though their population has tripled?), we cannot have it both ways, which appears the Dems are (and have been) publically promoting.

The source is today's Our View (op-ed) from The Gazette, Colorado Springs' newspaper.

[Leonidas]

The whole anti-nuke crowd is living off of yesterday's hysteria. They have developed a reactor that literally feeds off its own waste, and has been proven impossible to suffer a meltdown (no matter how hard they tried in tests they couldn't induce it), yet R&D in the nuke industry was shut down literally the very day this technology was introduced. Unfortunately it was the same day Chernobyl blew. If that technology were allowed to be intorduced into the industry the need for these wastesites would also go away since these reactors feed off their own waste.

I have also wondered about Kerry's plans to be non-dependent on foreign oil. He says Alaska is off limits for drilling, California is off limits, as is the Florida Coastline. OK, what does that leave us with? His plan is about as well thought out as his plan to have the UN come in and relieve US troops in Iraq, which BTW no prospective UN partners have even in the least bit expressed interest in doing any such thing. I am not a George Bush fan, and have been searching very hard for justification to vote for Kerry. I haven't seen it yet.

[Buccaneer]

I have been working in the public utilities industry for over 15 years now. I have witnessed the problems with our nation's power grid (supply and delivery, as well as market manipulations), as well as the current crisis of natural gas supplies and prices. I have recently worked on a wind farm project and know the limited capacities such an alternative can bring due to technology and negative environmental impacts (ironic isn't it?).

[Chief Rum]

"Derailing Yucca Mountain, they hope, will effectively kill off what’s left of the nation’s nuclear energy industry"

I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but that sentence seems like a pretty big leap of assumptions. If you have a hard time buying that sentence (like I do), the rest of the article pretty much falls apart.

They play out the logic pretty clearly in the article, don't you think? There are limited places right now where nuclear waste is being stored, and they are small and considered temporary. The Yucca Mountain complex is much larger and can hold much higher amounts of nuclear waste for much longer. It's meant to be a longterm facility.

So if you stop that (the Yucca Mountain complex) and have no other place to store the waste, then nuclear power plants will have to shut down, as there is no place to legally and relatively safely store their waste after the temporary sites fill up. That would mean the death of the nuclear power industry, at least here in the U.S.

What's hard to buy about it? It seems pretty clear cut to me. And if yuor nto questioning the content of the sentence, but that the Dems are supporting it in their platform, I have to think there is some facts from the convention to back this up. Unless you're saying the article is completely making up facts about the Dem platform as voted this week, I'm not sure how your opposal to the article on that sentence makes sense.

CR

[MrBug708]

Great planning by the democrats. They planned that Boston would receive over 154 million dollars by having the convention in Boston. Yet, as of right now, it stands to lose 8 million dollars. The convention is driving the local people out of the area during the convention. I surely hope when the democrats take office, they don't plan on running the United States like the COnvention has been planned thus far.

[Draft Dodger]

They play out the logic pretty clearly in the article, don't you think?
CR

no, I don't think it does at all, which is pretty much my whole point.

[Driftwood]

**News Flash!!**

Republicans favor minority families starving in the streets!

That`s right. Because of their opposition to extending welfare benefits, or their insistence on cutting the Food Stamp program, Republicans are effectively IN FAVOR OF starving poor, minority families, because, in effect, that`s exactly what will happen.

*shakes head*

Sheesh, reading this forum makes me ashamed of the state of American politics today.

[Draft Dodger]

Great planning by the democrats. They planned that Boston would receive over 154 million dollars by having the convention in Boston. Yet, as of right now, it stands to lose 8 million dollars. The convention is driving the local people out of the area during the convention. I surely hope when the democrats take office, they don't plan on running the United States like the COnvention has been planned thus far.

because we all know the current administration didn't underestimate the cost for, oh, I don't know, the war in Iraq or anything...

[Buccaneer]

The federal govt loves to spend money without realizing any gain, it's what we expect but a majority of folks are still too stupid to think that giving them more money (and power) will makes things better.

DD: I have a lot of respect for you but please put 2 and 2 together.

[MrBug708]

because we all know the current administration didn't underestimate the cost for, oh, I don't know, the war in Iraq or anything...


Democrats shouldn't throw stones if they live in a glass house....

[Draft Dodger]

The federal govt loves to spend money without realizing any gain, it's what we expect but a majority of folks are still too stupid to think that giving them more money (and power) will makes things better.

DD: I have a lot of respect for you but please put 2 and 2 together.

I'm not really sure what the first babble refers to, and I I'm fairly certain I don't know what the second one is about.

[Buccaneer]

Chief Rum/Matt, can you help me out here again?

[Chief Rum]

no, I don't think it does at all, which is pretty much my whole point.

Well, I pretty much spell it out, too.

Consider the logic:

Given facts:

A. Nuclear plants produce waste
B. Nuclear waste is dangerous and needs to be stored in facilities designed to contain them
C. Nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years
D. Nuclear waste is currently stored in facilities unsuited to long term use and of limited capacity
E. The government is in the process of getting approval for the certification of Yucca Mountain, a facility designed to hold nuclear waste long term.
F. Nuclear power provides 20% of the nation's power.

Do you deny any of these facts?

Okay, given that...

1. Nuclear plants must continue to operate to create power, and
2. Operating nuclear plants produce waste..

ergo

Conc: More nuclear waste is currently being produced.

Which leads to...

1. Nuclear waste amount is increasing, and
2. Current facilities have a finite level they can contain, and current levels are approaching maximum capacity...

ergo

Conc: The current facilities will soon run out of room to hold waste.

Which leads to...

1. Nuclear waste that cannot be stored safely cannot be allowed to be produced.
2. Reaching nuclear facility capacity, nuclear waste, without the Yucca Mountain complex, will no longer have any place to be stored...

ergo

Conc: Nuclear waste will soon be too much for current facilities and not be allowed to be produced.

Which leads to...

1. Nuclear power plants can't operate without producing nuclear waste
2. The government can't allow nuclear waste to be produced if it can't be safely stored...

ergo

Conc: Nuclear power plants will not be allowed to produce waste, which mans they can't operate, which means they must close down.

Since that situation would seemingly apply to all nuclear power plants in the U.S., all such plants would close, and the nuclear power industry would be dead.

Thus, the Dems' opposition to Yucca Mountain will, if successfulyl carried out, necessarily lead to the death of the nuclear power industry and the source of 20% of the nation's power.

What in this string of logic do you dispute?

CR

[duckman]

Well, I pretty much spell it out, too.

Consider the logic:

Given facts:

A. Nuclear plants produce waste
B. Nuclear waste is dangerous and needs to be stored in facilities designed to contain them
C. Nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years
D. Nuclear waste is currently stored in facilities unsuited to long term use and of limited capacity
E. The government is in the process of getting approval for the certification of Yucca Mountain, a facility designed to hold nuclear waste long term.
F. Nuclear power provides 20% of the nation's power.

Do you deny any of these facts?

Okay, given that...

1. Nuclear plants must continue to operate to create power, and
2. Operating nuclear plants produce waste..

ergo

Conc: More nuclear waste is currently being produced.

Which leads to...

1. Nuclear waste amount is increasing, and
2. Current facilities have a finite level they can contain, and current levels are approaching maximum capacity...

ergo

Conc: The current facilities will soon run out of room to hold waste.

Which leads to...

1. Nuclear waste that cannot be stored safely cannot be allowed to be produced.
2. Reaching nuclear facility capacity, nuclear waste, without the Yucca Mountain complex, will no longer have any place to be stored...

ergo

Conc: Nuclear waste will soon be too much for current facilities and not be allowed to be produced.

Which leads to...

1. Nuclear power plants can't operate without producing nuclear waste
2. The government can't allow nuclear waste to be produced if it can't be safely stored...

ergo

Conc: Nuclear power plants will not be allowed to produce waste, which mans they can't operate, which means they must close down.

Since that situation would seemingly apply to all nuclear power plants in the U.S., all such plants would close, and the nuclear power industry would be dead.

Thus, the Dems' opposition to Yucca Mountain will, if successfulyl carried out, necessarily lead to the death of the nuclear power industry and the source of 20% of the nation's power.

What in this string of logic do you dispute?

CR
I heart Rummy. :)

[Buccaneer]

Thanks Matt, I owe you one.

[Draft Dodger]

<i>2. Current facilities have a finite level they can contain, and current levels are approaching maximum capacity...</i>
If you got the 2nd half from the article, you've got better eyes than I do. Obviously, they all do have a finite level of containment, but how quickly are we approaching max capacity? 10 years? 20? 200? 2000?

unfortunately, this tears a small hole in your first conclusion (<i>Conc: The current facilities will soon run out of room to hold waste.</i>), upon which all your other conclusions are built. Again, from this "article" we have no idea how desperate this situation is (if at all). Moreover, there is no mention of alternate site possibilities. Maybe there are no alternate sites being considered, maybe there are. Maybe we can load the stuff on a rocketship and send it to Mars, or bury it with the WMDs in the Iraqi desert (yes, I'm kidding).

Now, I know NOTHING about nuclear power (and I have NO interest in that changing, so spare me the links), so maybe all Chiefs conclusions are correct. But if you're going to write an article presenting that killing this site will "effectively kill off what’s left of the nation’s nuclear energy industry", I would think you'd want to have some facts in there to back it up. Especially if you are going to use this article as the basis for your vote (yes, we all know Buccs minds was made up long before he read this article).

that's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing right or wrong, I'm just pointing out what a lousy article that is, factually, and how silly it would be to present that as ANY sort of a case to sway a vote one way or another.

[kcchief19]

1. Opposition to storing nuclear materials in Yucca Mountain does not equal eliminating nuclear power. Let's think of why storing ALL of nation's nuclear waste in Nevada might be a bad idea. In order to get nuclear waste from any of the power plants on the East Coast, you have to ship waste by truck or rail cross country. Wouldn't it make much more sense to store nuclear waste in several smaller locations closer to where the waste is produced rather than having to ship the waste cross country under armed guard to ensure that it is not hijacked by terrorist or somebody crashes into the truck or train and spills nuclear waste all over a major metropolitan area?

2. While Kerry has a staunch record of environmental activism, a big part of his and the DNC's opposition to Yucca Mountain is that Nevada is in play in November -- the people of Nevada no longer want all of the nation's nuclear waste stored in their state. Can you blame them? Why should the government force Nevada to accept all of the nation's nuclear waste, other than the fact that Nevada has no political clout in Washington? Isn't this a case of "Big Government" forcing Americans to take what they give them?

3. Argh. Can't wait til this election is over. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

[duckman]

3. Argh. Can't wait til this election is over. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but whoever wins will hear the wrath of the opposing faction on this board for some time.

[SFL Cat]

I don't want to burst your bubble, but whoever wins will hear the wrath of the opposing faction on this board for some time.

heh, probably true! And if its as close as it was last time....hoo boy.

[Vegas Vic]

2. While Kerry has a staunch record of environmental activism, a big part of his and the DNC's opposition to Yucca Mountain is that Nevada is in play in November -- the people of Nevada no longer want all of the nation's nuclear waste stored in their state.

Nevada has historically been a staunch Republican stronghold in the Electoral College, but Bill Clinton broke through in 1992 and 1996. Bush narrowly carried the state in 2000.

There is a lot of animosity against Bush in Nevada, not only because of Yucca Mountain, but also with organized labor.

Kerry will win the state this year. It will be very close, and it's only four electoral votes. The population growth in Clark County (which is strongly Democratic, while rural Nevada is Republican) will be the deciding factor.

[Chief Rum]

<i>2. Current facilities have a finite level they can contain, and current levels are approaching maximum capacity...</i>
If you got the 2nd half from the article, you've got better eyes than I do. Obviously, they all do have a finite level of containment, but how quickly are we approaching max capacity? 10 years? 20? 200? 2000?

unfortunately, this tears a small hole in your first conclusion (<i>Conc: The current facilities will soon run out of room to hold waste.</i>), upon which all your other conclusions are built. Again, from this "article" we have no idea how desperate this situation is (if at all). Moreover, there is no mention of alternate site possibilities. Maybe there are no alternate sites being considered, maybe there are. Maybe we can load the stuff on a rocketship and send it to Mars, or bury it with the WMDs in the Iraqi desert (yes, I'm kidding).

Now, I know NOTHING about nuclear power (and I have NO interest in that changing, so spare me the links), so maybe all Chiefs conclusions are correct. But if you're going to write an article presenting that killing this site will "effectively kill off what’s left of the nation’s nuclear energy industry", I would think you'd want to have some facts in there to back it up. Especially if you are going to use this article as the basis for your vote (yes, we all know Buccs minds was made up long before he read this article).

that's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing right or wrong, I'm just pointing out what a lousy article that is, factually, and how silly it would be to present that as ANY sort of a case to sway a vote one way or another.

See, now why didn't you say any of this from the beginning, so I didn't have to write an exhaustive post calling out the need for more information from your viewpoint? This is why throwing out statements with little to no suppor just leads to misunderstanding and aggravation.

Now to your hole-tearing. Does the article contain enough information? You're probably right that more could be talked about here. But there is also enough information to infer we are not talking a long period here.

The article speaks of the need for the Yucca Mountain complex. And how the loss of the complex could shut down the nuclear power industry. Why would this do so? It's not just the logic I spell out, but also the time frame. A new spot can always be found and a new facility built and then we begin anew. Obviously, though, this takes time. Yucca Mountain has been in the works for, what, at least a decade now. I know I at least have been hearing and reading about it for years. I suspect finding a new spot, securing the funds for it, building it and approving it and putting it in operation will take at least a decade, maybe even longer. That means that if the shutdown of Yucca Mountain is to also shutdown the nuclear industry, those temproary facilities will have to fill up soon, decades at the most, and not many of them.

Now I happen to recall from other articles I have read that we do indeed have only decades to go before those are filled. And not many decades. I think the articles I remember reading (in mags like Popular Science and Scientific American) were looking at us being at capacity by 2020, if not sooner. You and I agree that that is information that would help flesh out the article above, were it included.

That said, the article does say that shutting down Yucca Mountain could kill the nuclear power indusrty, and it is a fact that setting up a new facility would probably take at most 20 years. So for that first statement to be true, the current, temporary facilities would havce to be filled up within the next two decades. And that is something you can infer from the article, even if it isn't baldly stated.

As for alternative sites or destinations for this material, clearly if you don't know anything about it, this is an area you shoudl probably not express an ignorant opinion on. Disposing of this material is no easy task, and I do know a little bit about it. No one has yet come up with a better and more cost-effective solution than burying it in the ground somewhere.

So, yes, I agree with you that the article could have more facts listed in it. But that doesn't mean the statement you protested against was a careless assumption. It might be based on information you are not entirely given, but that doesn't mean it's not legit. So stating you believe it isn't a legit assumption is a bit of an assumption on your own part, because you are assuming information you yourself admit you don't have.

CR

[Chief Rum]

1. Opposition to storing nuclear materials in Yucca Mountain does not equal eliminating nuclear power. Let's think of why storing ALL of nation's nuclear waste in Nevada might be a bad idea. In order to get nuclear waste from any of the power plants on the East Coast, you have to ship waste by truck or rail cross country. Wouldn't it make much more sense to store nuclear waste in several smaller locations closer to where the waste is produced rather than having to ship the waste cross country under armed guard to ensure that it is not hijacked by terrorist or somebody crashes into the truck or train and spills nuclear waste all over a major metropolitan area?

Under the current situation, it could, as already laid out. If we have a space within a few decades where safe facilities need to be set up and built to store these materials, and we are due to fill up current facilities before those are done, that does essentially kill off nuclear power, or at the very least delay it for the time it takes to figure out what to do with the nuclear waste (and build appropriate facilities).

As for your objection to the single site proposal, it's a pro-con kinda thing. Yes, you're right that there is risk in having to transport that material to where it will be stored, both in terms of accidents and terrorists. But there are also costs to your solution. The increase in cost of running several sites near nuclear plants to just one big site is immense. It also gives terrorists several sites from which to acquire the material, and not just one. And it puts several areas potentially at reasonable risk, as opposed to one. Not to mention, there are inherent advantages to the Yucca Mountain site. It is sparsely populated, the terrain is ideal for storing the material, much more of the material can be stored in the larger facilities that can be built in areas like Yucca Mountain, it can be more easily guarded at one site, and only one area is put at reasonable risk by its storage. Although no part of the Earth is truly absent of flora and fauna, the desert is also less populated (in sheer volume) by animal and plant life, due to the sparseness of water, and so there is less fo a chance for significant environmental impact.

You have to weigh all that against the risk of transporting the materials to the site. I think all that far outweighs the risk, and that your plan would put far more people in danger.

2. While Kerry has a staunch record of environmental activism, a big part of his and the DNC's opposition to Yucca Mountain is that Nevada is in play in November -- the people of Nevada no longer want all of the nation's nuclear waste stored in their state. Can you blame them? Why should the government force Nevada to accept all of the nation's nuclear waste, other than the fact that Nevada has no political clout in Washington? Isn't this a case of "Big Government" forcing Americans to take what they give them?

3. Argh. Can't wait til this election is over. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

I generally agree with your last two points.

The only statement I would counter is the "Big Government" statement. While I don't deny there is some truth to your statement there, this is once again a situation where there are no easy answers, and there is no setting where everyone wins. I think the Yucca Mountain complex, as of right now, is the best answer on a list of poor answers. It minimizes the risk, but I have yet to hear a scenario that eliminates the risk. No matter where we put the stuff, someone nearby will oppose it.

I don't blame Nevada at all for not being too excited about it, and for fighting against it. I'm not ready to scream "Big Brother" though. These are the kind of tough decisions that come with being the government.

CR

[Draft Dodger]

See, now why didn't you say any of this from the beginning, so I didn't have to write an exhaustive post calling out the need for more information from your viewpoint? This is why throwing out statements with little to no suppor just leads to misunderstanding and aggravation.


that IS what I was saying at the beginning. I just don't like to type as much as you do.
:p

[Chief Rum]

that IS what I was saying at the beginning. I just don't like to type as much as you do.
:p

lol...guilty as charged. ;)

CR

[Peregrine]

I do generally support Yucca Mountain, because I think we need more nuclear power and we do need somewhere to store the waste, but I certainly won't dismiss the objections that Nevada and other states have raised about it. There are studies that indicate that water penetration of the facility can be a problem at some point, and when we're dealing with a 10,000 year time horizon, it seems unlikely that we'll be able to predict every eventuality. The transportation issues are also serious ones, and I say this as someone who grew up in a town that saw a large amount of nuclear rail traffic going through it. But a small town is one thing, the fastest growing city in the US is another. Sure, Yucca Mountain is in a deserted area today, but if LV continues growing at its current rate, will that be true in 20 years? 50? 500? Remember, we're dealing with a 10,000 year time frame for this facility.

[MIJB#19]

We can't import oil, we can't drill in the US....

I thought alchemy died a while back....Really, I do not want to get into these political debats, but something has to be said about the need for foreign oil. I've said it before and I will do it again.

There is oil in the USA and so much more in the oceans surrounding the USA. How much is not sure, but the oil companies know there is so much more oil out there then they make you believe. Still, those are reserves nobody has claimed yet and oil companies rather spent their money on a goverment that supports invading Iraq then to invest in oil detection systems. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter, this is so much cheaper for them.

[GrantDawg]

There is oil in the USA and so much more in the oceans surrounding the USA. How much is not sure, but the oil companies know there is so much more oil out there then they make you believe. Still, those are reserves nobody has claimed yet and oil companies rather spent their money on a goverment that supports invading Iraq then to invest in oil detection systems. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter, this is so much cheaper for them.
Do you realize that the oil companies spend millions of dollars lobbying to get to these oil reserves? The current adminstration listed that (as well as drilling in Alaska) as one of their top priorities when they were first elected. It has been the evironmentalist that have prevented the drilling. The oil companies have been more than willing to drill.

[MIJB#19]

Do you realize that the oil companies spend millions of dollars lobbying to get to these oil reserves? The current adminstration listed that (as well as drilling in Alaska) as one of their top priorities when they were first elected. It has been the evironmentalist that have prevented the drilling. The oil companies have been more than willing to drill.No, I didn't realize that.
I think I just learned more about the energy sources issue in the USA.

[MrBug708]

A lot of it is that people don't think it's very enviroment friendly and the simple fact that who wants to go to the beach and see Oil Rigs up and down the coast. But Bush has always been Pro-Oil, yet the more radical groups tie up US oil drilling in red tape that it's nearly impossible to drill in the US.

[Fritz]

MIJB - the US is not real keen on using domestic oil. we are saving it until after we have milked the rest of the planet dry. Strategic reserves and what not.

you don't get to be a superpower basing your economy on holiday cookie sales....

[Easy Mac]

MIJB - the US is not real keen on using domestic oil. we are saving it until after we have milked the rest of the planet dry. Strategic reserves and what not.

you don't get to be a superpower basing your economy on holiday cookie sales....
Not yet, although I heard the girl scouts are having a shortage this year, so we may have to tap some Easter cookies.

[Crapshoot]

While Im very much pro-nuclear power, we do not know enough about the long term effects of disposing Nuclear Waste, and I can understand the concerns of people- no one wants this in their neighborhood(would you Bucc ?) At some point, if that seeps back into the biosphere, the potential problems could be catastrophic- or it could be nothing. Either way, its certainly worth investigating- but committing without a fair degree of certainty seems to be a real case of Ill be dead in a 100 years- who cares philosophy.