Re: Federal Guidance Report No. 11

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

I hope  they realize that a successful parasite doesn't kill its host. 

If the project is killed, the money stops.  (This is similar to what

happened with Shoreham.  When the county and state wouldn't let Shoreham

operate, LILCO stopped paying real estate taxes on the facility - the value

of a power plant that can't operate is $0.00.  This had a severe impact

on the local schools.  Pardon my lack of sympathy.)

In any event, I doubt that the "oversight" money is anything close to the economic benefits of having the facility operate.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem, for a change.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:

In a message dated 1/29/02 6:16:50 AM Mountain Standard Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:
 
 

Yucca Mountain - Why is NV so dead set against this huge economic benefit which has been demonstrated to have virtually no environmental impact?. (It is
difficult to imagine how any activity short of more weapons detonations could make NTS any worse than it already is.)  Lack of trust?
...

Nevada is "so dead set" against Yucca Mountain because the more they oppose the project, the more money they get.  This is an unfortunate and unforeseen side effect of the provision in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the 1987 amendments to that act that DOE is required to fund any oversight activity that the state desires to do, and "oversight activity" can be interpreted quite broadly.  It has nothing to do with "trust."

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com