The Real McCain

[AwdGSX13]

Nuclear power is the way to go, clean and easy and great source of energy. besides the spent fuel rods or whatever their called that they bury underground. Ive also heard they give off hydrogen? or something which is beneficial for our atmosphere? Not sure exactly if thats true. As far as the voting decision goes, still undecided.

[asshanson]

Tom you need to read up on modern nuclear power, it's waaaay safer than it used to be, there have been huge advances. And dirty? Not compared to all the coal and oil we burn, and not into the atmosphere.

[tpunx99GSX]

Tom you need to read up on modern nuclear power, it's waaaay safer than it used to be, there have been huge advances. And dirty? Not compared to all the coal and oil we burn, and not into the atmosphere.

As clean as Nuclear power may seem, there is the worst kind of waste. Radioactive waste that is given off by cooling the rods. This has to go somewhere. Which is the main problem with nuclear power plants. Not to mencion another chernobyl incedent, but what about terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant, which are simply not guarded enough.
Wind and solor are much better, safer and cleaner sources of energy and can power the US with the right research and advances.

[Matt D.]

His views on nuclear power really scare me as if they stored all of that nuclear waste in the yucca mountain and a terrorist were to target that, the whole US would be fucked. Nuclear power is very dirty and creates waste that can cause great harm to human beings. I watched two videos on Chernobyl and almost cried because i thought about what i would feel if it were my son that came out with deformaties, (see. Chernobyl 20 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzu1eegKWM&feature=user
and Chernobyl 20 years later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh3QaWKbSg) With McCains views on Nuclear power its hitting a little close to home.
Do you know anything about nuclear power? It's time for some education. Chernobyl was a nuclear accident brought on by human negligence and error. It caused a steam explosion (what blew the reactor dome apart) and a complete meltdown of the reactor, the only one ever in the history of nuclear power. There has not been any other accident even remotely close to the severity of Chernobyl.

A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath most of these being cleanup personnel. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.

Three Mile Island is the worst accident to happen in the US, and in reality it is not bad.

Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor. This is the worst commercial nuclear accident in the United States. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources), with exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv) to approximately 2 million people. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict at most one long-term cancer fatality.

Do you really think a Cherobyl-like accident will happen in the US or anywhere ever again? That was over 20 years ago, and to think how much technology has advanced since then really should bring a piece of mind as to how much better and safer nuclear energy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Now, about terrorists getting ahold of spent nuclear fuel. Two things they could do: Build a dirty bomb (a conventional bomb that spreads radioactive material when it detonates) or build a nuclear weapon (requires reprocessing spent fuel). A dirty bomb... Possible, yes, but doubtful. Given the safeguards put in place around the world on nuclear energy it is extremely unlikely that enough radioactive material will ever get in the wrong hands. Massive amounts of spent plutonium fuel would need to be reprocessed into a usable state for a nuclear weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
It is thought that during the 1960s the UK Ministry of Defence evaluated dirty bombs, deciding that a far better effect was achievable by simply using more high explosive in place of the radioactive material.

An interesting tidbit... In 2002, the United States Department of Energy took possession of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles from the United States Department of Defense, and as of early 2003 was considering converting several nuclear power plants in the US from enriched uranium fuel to MOX fuel (mixed oxide, a mixture of radioactive materials) as a means of disposing of plutonium stocks. How that would be a bad way of reducing nuclear weapon proliferation is beyond me.

A good read about nuclear energy safety: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

So, Tom, is the sky falling? :)

[xveganxcowboyx]

I'm not endorsing nuclear power in any way, but I feel I should point out that any group or state that cannot produce it's own nuclear waste is not likely to be able to actually process the stuff to make a legitimate nuclear bomb. Dirty bombs are also not a big threat. They don't have much more of an impact than a traditional explosive. It's really just a method of psychological warfare.

I do have concerns about waste disposal/storage. When we have the option of safer and more renewable stuff it's not the best choice, but at least the "terrorist" scenario is not a huge threat with it.

[mdost03]

I'm voting McCain.

[Kracka]

I'm curious as to who the first to pay-ban Tom will be :)

[tpunx99GSX]

I love how you say it was human error and that it will never happen again. 20 years ago was NOT a long time ago by any means. Human errors happen every day, Computer errors happen every day. Saying something will never happen when it comes to something that could kill millions is an aweful assumption. What happens when your wrong? Im sure glad your not running for president.
And yes i do know what happened in Chernobyl. And the fact that the area surrounding Chernobyl is still uninhabitable should scare the living shit out of you when it comes to having 20+ Possible Chernobyl sites on US soil.
The controversy surrounding Yucca Mountain is that if a terrorist were to bomb Yucca mountain with all of that Nuclear waste it would float up into the jet stream and be spread beyond control over the US.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/60minutes/main579696.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

You tell me matt, is the sky falling?

[Kracka]

Risks must be taken in order for our society to SURVIVE and continue growing as we know it. Airplanes, cars, trains, and boats crash everyday killing hundreds; does that mean we should all lock ourselves in the basement and refuse progression?

[tpunx99GSX]

I'm curious as to who the first to pay-ban Tom will be :)

What i dont understand is how people that are planning on voting McCain dont see the simularities between Bush and Him. And if you actually think bush is a good president, next time im in town your getting a swift slap upside the head.