"We need to get our energy policy out of the hands of lawyers and people with names like Butterfly and Moonbeam."

Some of my more remote (in terms distance and closeness to Homo Sapiens) relatives think you shouldn't trust anyone whose name ends if a vowel OR A Z. Some might think they are ignorant SOBs, but they love their SUVs.

Anyway. clearly those "wastes" need to be kept out of the groundwater, not the case at Hanford, and they need to be stored.

I don't see any problem with transporting them, I don't see any problem in storing them, and, since we've only had bout 100 years playing with them, if mankind is around another 1000 years they will figure out a way to access at least the parts they want.

Personally, I believe the objections are on the phony side of bogus, now. At one time they weren't - at one time the way nuclear material was handled was extremely careless. I think that must be what's driving the objections.

The only chance this country has for sanity in energy is to get rid of those ridiculous, enormous SUVs and Suburbans and their ilk, AND switch everything possible to nuclear.

There are fail-safe designs for reactor-generators, you can store the waste. And you can keep forever that which would be destroyed forever in a temporary "fix".

Another thing I don't understand is why the US isn't working very hard to get away from oil, as we will sooner or later, anyway. Maybe it's because of Bush-Cheney, maybe it's because we are profit driven, and it will be more profitable to drill until it's gone.

Geez - that's too long.

Arf