This is not surprising, perhaps, but overlooks the fact that the very problem that gave rise to the ban in the first place -- the need for permanent storage of radioactive waste -- still has not been solved. Given this, now is not the time to revive nuclear power prospects in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Legislature may end a state ban on construction of new nuclear power plants. Just to let you all know - I don't have a beef with power plants. Nuclear power plants are not the problem - it's the stuff that runs the power plants that's the issue. This country (and any other country) has not resolved the issue of the uranium life cycle. Depleted uranium used in warfare is not an answer (http://www.unwire.org/unwire/19990423/2193_story.asp).

While there is an argument that depleted uranium is low in radioactivity, other arguments show that depleted uranium is higher in radioactivity than non-enriched uranium. At best, there is an agreement that depleted uranium - like any other heavy metal (re: lead), is toxic. Do you want lead in your water? I didn't think so. You don't want uranium in your water? Neither do I.

And, not one Native American I know or read about wants our depleted uranium stored at Yucca Mountain, a seismically-active mountain that was slated to hold uranium for the thousands of years that the waste remains toxic.

I don't know about you - but it seems that we have not chosen an underground storage solution for lead. Why do we need one for uranium? It must be more toxic than we are led to believe by some experts (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html).>