Re: LLW status according to AP: a fair story

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Tad Blanchard wrote:
> 
> When the Press calls it a "dump" instead of a "repository" they'll never
> get one built.  When you associate the word "dump" and "radioactive
> material" in the same article it is definitely a turn-off.
> 
> 
> At 08:13 AM 7/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >Nothing to show for millions spent toward nuclear waste disposal
> >
> >The Associated Press
> >
> >RALEIGH, N.C. (July 5, 1997 12:38 p.m. EDT) -- It's the same story
> >everywhere -- regional compacts Congress created 17 years ago to bury
> >low-level radioactive waste have spent hundreds of millions of dollars
> >with virtually nothing to show.
> >
> >Not one of the 10 multi-state compacts has opened a new dump in that
> >time. And none of the five states that opted to go it alone plans to
> >build one.

The only thing this shows is that the anti nukes are very, very
effective in preventing any new waste facilities from being
constructed.  Until there is as effective a pro nuclear organization in
this country, we will continue to waste taxpayer's money with nothing to
show for it.  But, what else is new?  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net