When it comes to nuclear fuel some aspects are dangerous but there are ways it can be extremely beneficial to meet our society’s energy needs. Whether it involves storage, recycling, or using nuclear energy, controversy always seems to arise. The author of a recent editorial from the scientific magazine, Nature, discussed reprocessing nuclear fuels. The author established that reprocessing should be laid to rest ending “a three-decade strategy to severe the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons” (Nature, 1). While this is true, it is plausible that storage in the Yukka Mountains and nuclear reprocessing are viable solutions to storage problems and less production.

To date, nuclear waste is being stored in several areas around the United States, with the majority located on the east coast. This poses more of a threat than if it were stored in one concrete place, like the Yukka Mountains. A journal article entitled, Nuclear Waste, describes the province by stating, “few signs of civilization can be seen from the windswept crest of Yucca Mountain, a flat-topped volcanic ridge about 100 desert miles northwest of Las Vegas. The closest humans live 15 miles to the south, at a desolate crossroads known as Lathrop Wells — population eight” (Hansen, 1). Many people argue that is too high risk and bad for the environment and the booming tourist city of Las Vegas, but let’s face the facts, nuclear power is vital to meet our energy needs and with nuclear energy use, comes nuclear waste storage. “This country is choking on its own nuclear waste,” Murkowski thundered. “If we don't solve the problem of our spent nuclear fuel soon, the American taxpayer will bear the cost of the financial liability . . .” (Hansen, 2). People have to think about a solution to waste storage and so far, the Yukka Mountain province is the only plausible presentation. While the process will be long, taking an estimated 25 years to transport all the waste to the site, it will, in my opinion, be better in the long run. Also, there is a good possibility that scientists could develop better ways of storage in the near future. They are now looking at a process called transmutation, “some experts believe that a still experimental waste reprocessing technique may someday reduce the required isolation time for spent nuclear fuel from thousands of years to just a few centuries” (Hansen, 3). Unfortunately some people, like the editor of the Nature article, would probably agree with others who say that transmutation is just another name for reprocessing. Personally, as a resident of the east coast, where the majority of the current storage sites are located, I am directly affected and feel that the Yukka Mountains is an ideal place for storage.

Nuclear reprocessing is another option because it aims to reduce the volume of nuclear waste that has to be stored safely by recycling it for use in nuclear reactors (Nature, 1). The United States and Germany abandoned this process earlier but France has kept up with the costly fuel recycling. The United States is now “recycling the past” with President Bush’s proposal to bring back the reprocessing. The editorialist in Nature feels that this is not the way to go about solving this crisis and that it would be backtracking (Nature, 1). However, on the contrary, I feel that even though the process is costly, the United States could benefit from recycling. Why would people support recycling plastics for less pollution, but do not support recycling nuclear fuel for less waste, storage, and potential danger? The issue is much more complicated than what I just proposed, but it seems that people are not supporting storage solutions because they would rather be idle and not worry about the problem now. “Let’s cross that bridge when it comes,” is the old saying, but when this bridge comes it’s probably already going to be flaming and broken.

The nuclear waste debate is a fragile subject. President Bush believes we should build more plants for nuclear power, but the problem of waste disposal needs to be solved first and foremost. “Will there be accidents? That's certainly a possibility,” Benson says. “But we haven't been able to come up with a credible, real-world scenario where there would be any kind of catastrophic release” (Hansen, 5). There are going to be risks on both sides of the argument. If we do not re-start reprocessing, then there will be much more nuclear waste to store, and if we do not agree on where to store the waste that we have now, it is going to become very dangerous. Either way, waste will be created and until we agree or have an authority proclaim it, the waste is going to be too widely dispersed. The safety of millions will be affected if this problem is not addressed. The government spends billions trying to protect its citizens from other countries, but the real threat might turn out to be in our homeland.

Hansen, B. (2001, June 8). Nuclear waste. CQ Researcher, 11, 489-504. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2001060800.

“Recycling the Past.” Nature. 02 February 2006. 11 February 2007.

Transmutation of High-Level Nuclear Waste. Meyer Steinberg. 1990. JSTOR. 10 Feb. 2007 .