Letters to the editor 6-11
Turn Yucca site into
research, storage facility
The science and technology for the safe transportation, storage and recycling of radioactive materials exists, but there is widespread propaganda from those opposed to human progress that ignores both the reality of our capabilities and the needs of the ever-growing population.
Radioactive materials have been safely transported in the United States for more than 50 years. Radioactive materials have been recycled for almost as long, although rarely in the U.S., due to some very short-sighted policies developed during the Carter administration.
Currently, nuclear energy is the only long-term solution for base load electrical generation, of course, strongly supplemented with renewable energy. Renewable energy could even power a recycling facility, which ideally would be developed near Yucca Mountain.
Use of nuclear energy does require one to properly utilize the radioactive materials concentrated or created during production of the fuel rods and operation of the plant. Of course, if the coal power plants had the same requirements then we would have no base source of electrical power at all.
(The Nevada Appeal) should issue another commentary, not only including technically accurate information, but suggesting that whether Independent, Democrat or Republican one should not vote for either Sens. Reid or Ensign at the next applicable elections. One should vote for whomever is running that will work to benefit the state of Nevada and the U.S. by encouraging a temporary storage facility and a long-term recycling and research facility at Yucca Mountain.
Homeland Security response to terror report was forced
This letter is in regards to Robin Christy’s opinion on June 6 about “Right wing crybabies.”
While I will not engage in name calling as you have so blatantly done with your letter regarding the “right wing crybabies,” I would like to point out some facts to you as it seems you are ill informed.
While the Department of Homeland Security report does say “potential,” the intent of the report was very blatant.
I would like you to put yourself back in the Bush time when the Patriot Act came about. Were you one of the ones crying over that? I agree the Patriot Act is an infringement on our rights, but it was the same type of thing. It pointed out “potential terrorist targets.”
If the report came out and said “Anyone expressing free speech is now considered a terrorist,” would you be offended? After all, your letter to the Appeal was free speech.
While you posted the response of the DHS, that response did not come out until after the firestorm started regarding this report. It was a forced response. You forgot to add that Janet Napolitano also mentioned, “I will not apologize for the report. I stand behind it.”
So instead of resorting to name calling of the right wings who found it offensive (as a side note it wasn’t just right wings who found it offensive. Military vets also found it offensive) do your research.
First Lady ferrets out a candidate to back
I see Dawn Gibbons is supporting Harry Reid’s re-election bid. Heck, I didn’t even know Jim was running for the Senate.