Deseret News | House panel OKs bill to ban importing foreign N-waste

Reader comments
House panel OKs bill to ban importing foreign N-waste

Robert S. | 10:40 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009

In my opinion, the hysteria about "importing" foreign nuclear waste into Utah results from a lack of understanding about what it is that EnergySolutions plans to import and store. The waste will not destroy Utah or anyone in Utah; it's the kind of nuclear waste that leaves Utah hospitals and clinics every day.

It would be nice if other countries would or could store such waste themselves, but they either won't or they can't. As a result, if left to other countries, we may soon see this kind of waste floating in our oceans. It's better to store it here in this country, where we have strict rules for its storage.

Brian | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Why so much opposition to importing this low-level waste? It seems a bit hypocritical when we're sharing many tons of waste with the rest of the world from our coal plant emissions.

Interesting enough, no one is charging us for our polluted air...

Johny Fairplay | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Good.

Comments continue below

anonymous | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009

I agree. The opposition to EnergySolutions business proposal speaks volumes about the education of voters in Utah. The facts are that this is a necessary business that involves practically no risk. Anyone who does not believe that should make it a point to visit the facility where the disposal takes place and see for themselves. When Jim Matheson says that Utahns have spoken "loudly and clearly" on this issue, it only speaks ignorance to me, and unfortunately that is the image we are sending to Washington.

Jerry W | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

If storing radioactive waste is no big deal then why don't these other countries take care of their own waste. Please don't let the dollar have presidence over our future welfare.

Anonymous | 12:21 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

I'm all for banning another country's waste. Utah is growing and will generate enough of its own nuclear waste along with the rest of the country. People need to get the $$$$$ signs out of their eyes, and other nations need to be responsible for their own waste. Utah should not be a dumping ground for everyone!

Go Matheson!

Pragmatist | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

I'm upset that we may have had our chance to make a deal with EnergySolutions and we blew it. Utahns are taxed at the income, property, and sales tax level and we are still short of funds on education and other important programs. Our neighbors, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming, all have industries they rely on that keep them from being taxed at every level. We could have received $10B over ten years for allowing EnergySolutions to do for Italy what they're already doing for us, and we say "Nah"...IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION! I care about the environment too, and I would love to use some of that money to fund projects to clean up the air (which is the real problem anyway). I know some people will say "but we shouldn't taint the ground either", I agree, but the ground in the west desert is already "tainted" because it's already being used by EnergySolutions, so in effect we'd be getting $10 billion dollars to put one more dirty dish in the sink. I'm for it, and yes I wrote my local Senator about it!

Anonymous | 12:34 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

If Europe makes it, they can take care of it.

Question | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Without getting into the merits of the debate, I am curious how Rep. Matheson can say that Utahans have spoken loudly about this. As far as I know, this has never been put to a referendum, or anything like that, so what is he talking about? There are clearly strong views on both sides, and those people have spoken loudly, but Matheson implies that there is some sort of definitive consensus, which I don't believe is true.

Thanks Matheson | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

Thanks Rep. Matheson! Don't sell us out to the money mongers.

I am one of the Utahans that is speaking loudly about this issue.

Why Not Italy | 4:03 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

If storage of this waste is not such a "big deal" as many of you and EnergySolutions have postulated, then I would suggest that Italy should find their own 4.3 acres of land to store it.

Anonymous | 4:58 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009

"Jill Sigal, executive vice president of strategic planning for EnergySolutions"

That sounds like Jill makes a lot of money. She probably has 4.3 acres in her backyard.

Let's put it there!

Why Not Here | 6:01 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

For the people who think that what's made in Europe should stay in Europe, realize that Utah is the home of many Uranium deposits and we have exported more than is returned. Why not the slogan what's mined from Utah should come back to Utah.

No risk? | 6:21 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Talk about uneducated, there is no safe level of radiation from waste. Its half life can be hundreds of years. Half life is the number of years that it takes nuclear materials to dissipate half its radiation, and it can't be destroyed by fire or chemically.

The affects of nuclear radiation on the human body is also accumulative. That means every time a person is exposed, hospital workers, miners, waste site employees, they accumulate progressive exposure. The body and every thing exposed takes years to dissipate it. When a worker reaches established accumulative radiation levels he must be relocated to other jobs.

There are radiation detectors at Utah dump sites that were constantly being triggered by passing trains with nuclear waste. So these sensors were reset and adjusted so that passing trains with 'safe waste' wouldn't trigger them.

Energy Solutions is lying to the public and their claims of safe is very wrong. The mere 4.3 acres is barely enough to store local waste let alone international waste. Energy Solutions fooled us and our legislators once, must stop them and further expansion in to thousands of acres.

The Energy Solutions Staff | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

has done a great job in spinning how silly and provincial we Utahns are. ESA is big business; travel and tourism are big business. I'm not sure it's a great selling point going from "Life Elevated" to "Radiation Elevated" as a slogan.

huh | 10:16 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

If there is no risk - then everyone can keep their own - we dont need it.

No more deals | 11:44 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

No more deals with the devil.
I am thankful for Matheson's efforts to keep this stuff out.

The greed of energy solutions is unbelievable.

Do what is best for our children | 6:46 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Allowing Energy Solutions to transport through our state radioactive materials is just being short sited and quite ignorant. No amount of money can compensate for a risk that, regardless of how small this big business can spin it into, is still a risk. A risk which makes no sense. To criticize Utahn's for not being more educated about the subject is quite laughable. It is the mere fact that more Utahns are not educated about the subject which gives Energy Solutions any chance of pulling off such a terrible feat. Please, how much is the health of our children, the health of our state really worth. I would say it is invaluable. Energy Solutions' cries of "how much money this state is losing" have no validity. A healthy, safe place to live should be our first concern.

Ann | 3:14 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

These people are all concerned about Utah, what about Tennessee, they have to process it. No one cares whether they live or die. My dad worked at the Oak Ridge plant as a carpenter and he suffered because of his exposure to the radiation. He had prostrate cancer which progressed to bone cancer. So don't tell me there is no danger, no matter how small.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.