Read this and take swift action. Be at the Capital Building at 5PM on Wednesday to demonstrate that Utah is not for sale.
It’s appalling.Despite the Governor’s and Congressman Matheson’s strongly worded opposition, and in defiance of the wishes of Utahns, lawmakers plan to push legislation next week to make Utah the dumping ground for foreign nuclear waste in exchange for EnergySolutions’ cash.
Our message is simple: Utah is NOT for sale. And next week, we are bringing this message straight to the Capitol steps. Will you help us?
Please join us for a “Utah is NOT for sale” rally at the Capitol next Wednesday, February 25th, at 5:15pm. We need to stand together to deliver the message that we will NOT be bought off by EnergySolutions’ dirty money. We’ll be handing out “NOT For Sale” signs and gathering on the Rotunda Steps inside the Capitol Building starting at 5:00pm.
Personally deliver a “Utah is NOT for sale” message to your elected representatives. We are looking for at least one person from every district in Utah to personally deliver this important message to their legislators. We will have a table set up in the Cafeteria (first floor of Senate or East Building) from 7:30am to 4:00pm. Check in to get a fact sheet and quick tips on how to get a hold of your legislators.
Gov. Huntsman defiantly put his foot down yesterday telling the Legislature he would veto any bill to dump foreign nuclear waste in Utah.
But EnergySolutions doesn’t take no for an answer and so its army of lobbyists is working to pick up enough votes to override the Governor’s veto. The company already has a head start, having donated more to legislators and political parties in recent years than any other corporation or political action committee in the state (and covering over 80% of the Legislature).
Join us next week to remind our legislators that we elect them to serve US, not EnergySolutions’ bottom line. Help us deliver a clear and simple message: Utah is NOT for sale.
(H/T to Marshall @ W.W.)
Jeff,
I called in to your radio show on Saturday the 21st. The 3rd time I’ve ever called in to any radio show. Not that I’m passive or inattentive to what’s going on – it’s just that it usually takes a long time on hold to get in and then quite often the host lets a caller speak for only a moment and then talks all over the top of him while trying to press his own point.
I had some hope though when I heard the caller before me get to go on and on about the issue. I thought, maybe this radio host will let me speak my mind. It didn’t turn out that way. I don’t know if you were up against the end of your show and you figured you just had to speak for the last five minutes yourself; or if you got a hint that I was not entirely on your side of the issue so you didn’t want to let me get in on the conversation (if you could call it that).
So anyway, not likely that I’ll call your show again. Not worth the minutes on my cell phone or the frustration. However, I wanted to respond to a question you asked me. Would I want nuclear waste stored in my backyard. My answer is yes, if it is stored as safely as current standards require, and especially if I would get paid well to do it. Look, either the stuff can be stored safely or it can’t. If it can, and I believe it can, then as long as the requirements are met then I’m fine with it. It’s much less harmful to the earth than the real waste from coal and oil, which are the only viable alternatives to nuclear power.
If you’ve read “Terrestrial Energy” like you said you did, then you know something about the limitations of wind, solar, and geo-thermal power. Hopefully they’ll make a significant impact, especially long-term, but there are serious issues that will keep them from providing for all our needs anytime soon, perhaps ever.
If we were to re-process our nuclear fuel, as France does, we would have very little waste in terms of volume, and the term “waste” is somewhat misleading because it is still potential energy. The earlier caller I mentioned talked vehemently, and I believe ignorantly, about what will likely happen if we accept low-level waste from Italy. He assumed that every other country would be trying to send us their waste too. Two points: First, France, which he mentioned as one of those, would not be worried about trying to send us their waste because they have very little nuclear material left over and have been storing it all underneath one large room in their own location.
Second, I think we still could have an expectation that Utah would remain autonomous and would retain the ability to make such decisions in the future. In other words, saying yes to this proposition now does not mean yes forever and in all circumstances.
Bottom line is I very strongly support nuclear energy – which necessarily includes supporting the storage of the resulting byproducts. Your position seems to be that nuclear waste (even low-level waste) is so toxic and dangerous that we dare not accept it in our state when it comes from outside the state. Does that mean that it is not really that toxic and dangerous if it comes from a power plant from within the state? Or do you really just give lip service to nuclear energy for now and when it comes time to consider nuclear energy in Utah you’ll be against it then?
fun but can be rewarding!