I really hate it when people try to mix politics and the environment together.

Does it matter if a party, or person supports this type of environmental issue? People are individuals.

A party is a group, and putting a label on the whole group as either "this" or "that" doesn't sound right.

doesn't matter... special interest groups will alter those words anyway. why can't the environment and human health be a special interest group?

I agree with quikboy on vague over generalizations, however I wanted to note that military nuclear waste was being deposited at a facility in New Mexico, this facility is known as Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and it has been receiving wastes since 1999. As of 2006 there has been some 4,500 shipments. (Wright, 2008)

Reference

Wright, R. (2008) Environmental science 10th edition NJ: Pearson: Prentice Hall

The only reason the Nevada site was chose was over political opposition, and Nevada lost.

Studies for the siting of a civilian nuclear waste site basically found that there's almost no place in the country where there's no seismic movement for more than 1,000 years. Nuclear waste needs 100,000 of isolation, minimum.

Commercial nuclear power wouldn't even exist, if not for the federal governments continual and massive subsidies, and the assumption of insurance risk.

Like with biofuels, it's arguable that nuclear power even makes more usable energy than is invested in the production cycle.

The sooner we cap the nuclear era and turn our attention to safe, distributed renewable energy and conservation, the further ahead we'll be.

Obama's home state of Illinois has the most nuclear reactors of any state in the union: 11 reactors at 6 locations producing around 950,000 kWh per year. Makes me wonder what alternative plan he has for 1) storage of nuclear wastes currently sitting in cooling ponds in his home state, or 2) what his energy policy would include to replace the generating capacity of current facilities.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesil.html

@andrew
TRU (Trans-Uranic) Wastes are fundamentally different than High-Level Wastes from spent fuel as they don't contain appreciable levels of long-lived fission products. There are also 3 Low-Level Waste repositories operating in the united states, but most of it is sitting at staging facilities at the various nuclear facilities. www.nrc.gov has more information

@jon
Please site your sources.

Abe,

Basically all of what Jon said is once again common knowledge, i.e. semi base level Environmental Science. Maybe some of those numbers are a little off, but they are baseline correct. The Neveda site is the only known isolated place with the low level of seismic activity and ground that will be otherwise stable within the United States. This all boils down to the same text book I referenced above has data very similar to what he said.

Also I have not heard of Tran-Uranic Wastes. If this has something to the extent of Military Waste is not as potent. I will ask then why are certain nuclear generator's and processes occur in this Country? My understanding is because these would allow for Nuclear Weapons to be possibly be generated on the side. I.e. the would allow for weapon grade material to be generated. So basically what you are saying is not agreeing with what I have read, doesn't mean what you say is inaccurate, just that I have not heard it, and I want reliable sources.

Quickboy: It is true that this issue isn't on the party platform but several Democrats have came out against Yucca Mountain waste dump such as Sen. Kerry (former Presidential candidate), Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama. Yes, the numbers are small but we are not talking a few obscure politicians.....we are talking about three powerful voice in the Democratic Party.

=== author's response follows ===
And not to forget, Nevada Sen Reid, Dem majority leader, is also opposed (what choice would he have?).

I hate to say it, but if a nuclear waste dump site doesn't get approved, where does the waste go?

Piled up at the nuclear power plants?

To the lowest bidder overseas for disposal?

Nuclear waste has to go somewhere, even if we stopped using nuclear power now there is already waste that needs to be dealt with.

This is more of a problem about Nevada, which has no nuclear power plants and doesn't even have the ideal geology, losing to other states that have more political power. The current proposition needs to be scraped and reexamined from a purely geotechnical and environmental perspective without the political pressure from certain powerful states.

@JC

In the meantime it sits at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities all across the country. http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html

"To the lowest bidder overseas for disposal?"

The answer to that question can be answered by the NRC governing legislation. Most notably Title III of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as ammended. The answer is no.

@Courtney

Yucca mountain is located within the boundary of the Nevada Test site and the geology is EXTREMELY well studied. A provision in an ammendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided the site be shut down immediately if found unsuitable. The idea of scrapping almost 3 decades of work due to your baseless claims is absurd.

If Nevada set up a gigantic solar farm, I'm talking monumental, they would find themselves with a lot of political power.

Round up that waste and sling-shot it at the sun with an electromagnetic canon. Duh.

The real issue here is the fact that as a Nation we make nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is sort of like disposable diapers ... great, clean and easy in the beginning, but when used leaves a horrible mess that nobody wants to deal with ... although disposable diapers have a shorter half-life and I have yet to hear of anyone using them as a possible weapon or in a terrorist threat ;)

John Edwards is the only candidate to address this with reason.
Read more on this at:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/10/42227/7658