かくはいきぶつ。

Utah won a surprising victory in last fall's elections. Specifically, the new Democratic majority—and the new Democratic majority leader—are almost certainly going to block any further development of the Yucca mountain nuclear waste dump. Like the rest of us, Senator Reid is always annoyed with NIMBY politics except when the backyard is his own, and his own backyard is precisely where Yucca mountain was to be built.

At first glance this seems to be a victory for those opponents of nuclear power who I would never be tactless enough to call dirty hippies. And my first thought was to rail against the damnably good intentions of the people who want to make the world safer by keeping three decade old coal-fired power plants spewing greenhouse gases and also poison across the Midwest in specific and the atmosphere of this planet in general. But a few discordant notes in the article left my complaints oddly off-key:

''The problem is the concept that the public wants the waste moved,'' said Michele Boyd, the legislative director and nuclear expert at Public Citizen. ''That's a 20-year-old concept.'' …

''We want Diablo Canyon plants shut down,'' [activist Jill] ZamEk said. When it comes to the plant's waste, however, she said, ''the risk of transporting it is so great it needs to stay where it is.'' …

[Senator Barbara] Boxer said that if a way to reprocess nuclear waste safely could be found, it would help with the waste issue, produce new fuel for reactors and ''make me feel more positive about nuclear power''

Well, obviously it occurs to remind Boxer that there is are safe reprocessing operations at the La Hague plant in France; the Mayak plant in Russia; the Thorp and B205 plants in Britian; and the ろっかしょ plant in Japan. And of course there was the West Valley plant in New York that safely recycled nuclear fuel rods until President Carter shut it down in 1977 out of environmental concerns that India might get the bomb. Today, India has the bomb, and the Tarapur, Kalpakkam, and Trombay reprocessing plants.

But Boxer's comments are really very reasonable in the context of a movement whose adherents are often unclear on the difference between Three Mile Island and Cherynobyl, and who fear even the smallest laboratory reactor could unleash—what? Giant ants?

Boyd and ZamEk also demonstrate an acceptance of the immutable existence of nuclear waste that did not exist on the left twenty years ago—when, to be fair, much of the waste did not exist either. The immutability of radioactive waste tends to force even the most committed hydro-electric enthusiast to accept some sort of plan to deal with it. Accepting a plan for nuclear waste in turn makes it hard to think of nuclear power as beyond the pale. Instead, one finds oneself comparing nuclear plants to other forms of power generation and looking for the one that is, if not the best, at least the least unpleasant option.

And while the words 'least unpleasant option' are not for most people synonymous with 'nuclear power plants,' in a better world they probably would be.