There are three big differences between the places. Cumbria has suitable geology for a nuclear workforce of 50,000 skilled and knowledgable on the technology. Nevada has neither. And Cumbria has asked for the dump to be sited there, whereas Nevada was told and that makes a very very big difference!

Also, what's with the picture of 'cooling nuclear waste'? If you can't find a real picture to go with your 'article' please don't bother. Using a false picture is lying.

A decade ago the Nirex enquiry resolved that the geology of the West coast of Cumbria was the worst possible for a nuclear dump.
Photo- Wastwater - 4 millions gallons of water are abstracted daily to cool existing nuclear waste at Sellafield.

Pro-nuclear people and Cumbria county's Cabinet members are conveniently forgetting the verdict of the Sellafield Inquiry on the geology being unsuitable.

Chris McDonald, the lead inspector (now retired) of the 1995-96 public inquiry wrote in The Guardian of 28 June 2007 that

“10 years ago the nuclear industry had not found a way of maintaining the stability of (the Sellafield) geology when physically exploring the underground site. The imperfection (claimed by Nirex) consists of simply failing to meet the internationally agreed criteria on the suitability of rocks for nuclear waste deposit. The site should be in a region of low groundwater flow, and the geology should be readily characterisable and predictable, whereas the rocks there are actually of a complex volcanic nature, with significant faulting. Also, the industry was relying on an overlying layer of sedimentary strata to dilute and disperse any groundwater leakage, when the international criteria require such a layer to act instead as a barrier. The comprehensive assessment that reports the deficiencies in detail is at www.jpb.co.uk/nirexinquiry/nirex.htm”.