People who object to the proposed hazardous waste storage site by appealing to extremely implausible scenarios in which the site fails to contain the waste safely are overlooking the significant risks associated with delays in moving the waste from its present unsafe location. ██ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ █ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████████ ██████
There are people who argue against the proposed hazardous waste site based on implausible scenarios where the site fails. These people overlook the significant risks associated with delaying moving the waste from its currently unsafe location. If the waste is not moved until a safe site is found, the waste will remain in its current location for years. This is because it's impossible to guarantee that any proposed sight will meet the criteria for being labeled “safe.” Keeping the waste at the current unsafe location for that long presents unacceptable risks.
The waste should be moved to a new site to reduce risks
The statements above, if true, ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
The waste should █████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████
The waste should ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████
Moving the waste ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████
Whenever waste must ██ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██████
Any site to █████ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ █████