But what is the best approach for dealing with existing nuclear waste? Many object to the Yucca Mountain plan because it involves transporting waste through U.S. communities, at some risk. But are the alternatives any better?

A substantial amount of nuclear waste is currently being stored above ground at nuclear reactor sites, an approach which is clearly neither safe nor sustainable. Scientists have proposed a number of alternatives, including Yucca Mountain. Here is a link to an executive summary of some of these proposals (note that this is from the official government Yucca Mountain page and is therefore biased):

http://www.ymp.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.htm

And here's a more independent, and critical, resource on the same issue:

http://earth.fhda.edu/curriculum/nuclear/nucwas6.htm

To effectively oppose Yucca Mountain, anti-nuclear activists ought to recommend viable alternatives for disposal of existing nuclear waste. Otherwise the media will correctly and damningly characterize the opposition as a case of "not in my backyard", a short-sighted approach which, if successful everywhere, will leave nuclear waste management in its current, abysmal state. Everyone's backyard will seem safe, but the earth itself will still be in danger.