The July 10 letter, "Nuclear waste should go to Nevada site," stated that "one successful terrorist attack on either of Connecticut's two nuclear waste dumps and southeastern Connecticut would become another Fukushima."
I don't believe any of the Fukushima problems resulted from damage to dry cask storage of expended fuel. Rather, it was due to a number of things like loss of water cooling to operating reactor elements and possibly "recently" expended fuel stored in cooling pools. It is really hard for dry cask storage expended fuel to melt.
While I believe our nuclear waste should be stored in Nevada, I will not support that action with alarmist and erroneous statements.