And that the citizens in the State of Nevada--we were admitted to the Union, if I recall, before the good State of New Mexico--but somehow for the rest of America, they have a 4-millirem standard for safe drinking water, at another nuclear storage area in our country they are proposing 15 millirems, but in the State of Nevada from a sole source, a single source, they are suggesting that Nevadans would have to accept a standard of 100 millirems from one source on an annual basis? Is that what they are suggesting?
William Bryan: “And that the citizens in the State of Nevada--we were admitted to the Union, if I recall, before the good State of New…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing disparities in radiation standards for safe drinking water in Nevada compared to other states.
Share
More from William Bryan
There are no maps. That will give you some indication of what a shoddy, moving target this has been as we have tried to debate and expand on it. It is simply indefensible public policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
It strikes the Senator from Nevada that the argument the Senator is making is a win-win. It is a win for the consumer, for the environment, and in terms of the trade imbalance we currently face in this country. Would the Senator not agree…
Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic, but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
Do I understand the thrust of the Senator's argument is not to advocate some new standards for CAFE but simply to permit those who are charged with that responsibility to make a basic inquiry as to whether or not there is room, based upon…





