McCain & Palin and Nuclear Agenda.

First of all let me start by stating "I do not know about the advancement in recent years in nuclear technology". With that out of the way...my vote will go to McCain or a possible Independent candidate.

The only thing that worries me about a McCain administration is their talk of building nuclear plants to meet America's hunger for power.

I have always been a guy interested in protecting the environment, not too the point that I ever dated a girl with unshaved armpits and hairy legs, but I have always leaned toward organic foods, and have been environmentally minded.

Wouldn't these nuclear plants be a liability in the long run to terrorist attacks, and no matter how advanced the technology is, what would prevent a Charnoble <---I know I spelled this wrong.

There used to be a nuclear plant near Portland, OR, where you could float down the river, walk right up on the bank, and touch the nuclear plant that was there. I did this when I was a teenager. Since then...The state of Oregon paid Washington state to take the nuclear rods and bury them somewhere. I don't know the whole story.

I am just worried about this whole nuclear push, and wanted to get other opinions about it. I know that Bush has also been pushing this and I just don't get it. Seems like trouble to me.

 

Wow...no response, that shocks me, people here from DP are usually up on all the issues. Looks like a clueless response this time.

 

Have to give people some time to respond.

That made my night! Nice way to put it. I have always been some what concerned about the nuclear power plants here - There are some by me. One of them is in New York. I forget the particular name of it, but it was a major concern after 9/11. Since then, security has been buffed, but it could be better. I wonder if they will voice their plans on how to properly secure them.

If if they do, there is still no way they can be 100% secured. But that goes for everything.....

 

I think I would rather have them create more wind and solar, instead of nuclear.

Is there any independent running that is against nuclear?

 

Republicans by definition are money "friendly" people. Environment is something they don't want to know about.
Forget about McCain becoming enviornment friendly person.
Obama seems to be much, much better choice for you than McCain and Palin.

 

So let me get this straight. You openly admit that you don't know jacksh*t about the subject at hand, but you still have a strong, principled opinion about it and demand people to actually care about your nugget of wisdom.

You, my friend, are the strongest argument against democracy I have heard all day.

 

"A democracy is nothing more than an angry mob, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Jefferson

Directly speaking to the topic of nuclear power, I think we'll see a lot of this regardless of who is elected. The benefits are immense (and so are the conflicts of interest):

• Plenty of fuel (uranium)

• Strong international demand for nuclear reactors can help balance the trade deficit (China would probably buy some $500 billion in new plants if we would supply the product)

• One of the most important political networks (NBC) is heavily invested in nuclear technology, nuclear electronics, and even wind power collection. As the number one recipient of federal contracts and "America's News Leader," they would almost certainly get a large cash share of any alternative energy program

Both candidates will promise to outspend the other on one or another of the politically connected sectors: war, medicine, education, manufacturing, green energy...etc...etc...ad nausea until we're broke.

Oops! Too late.

 

If i was in charge, Of Britain at least, I would make us 100% nuclear within 15 years. It is by far the cleanest, most efficient and cheapest source of fuel we currently have access to.

If McCain has policy along these lines then i agree with him on this particular issue.

 

sounds like a republican to me maybe even VP quality.

 

Lets dont attack each other...he's just pissed off at Americans.

Did anybody watch that tv show Jericho? You dont have to be an expert to know there are major risks with nuclear. The Russians are smart people. They have sent men into space. Yet they still messed up and had a huge meltdown...luckily only killing 177,000 people...could have been a lot more.

My question is why invest in nuclear...when solar and wind are 100% clean? Is it cheaper to build a nuclear plant, than a wind or solar plant? Or is this an attempt to start the Manhattan project all over again, maybe accidentally?

Oh I have an idea lets build some right along the US/Mexican border and cross our fingers. joke-in case you could not figure that out.

 

She says "nu-cu-lar" just like G.W.B.!!!!

 

In my personal opinion, I think we have to do what we can to convert to something. It's not going to be an easy transition. However, I don't think throwing technology out the window is a wise thing to do at this point. It doesn't matter how many hybrid cars we run, we're still going to run out of oil. My personal phylosophy is that we should be working towards "all of the above". We should be putting more hybrids on the road, we should be drilling more oil that is available, converting vehicles and incentives to do so, and we should be investing in all forms of renewable energy. This is why I support McCain on this issue. I believe he truly sees the crisis and the demand for change in the energy department. I'm not so convinced that Obama does.

 

what you really want to worry about is pugs starting something with russia and get the real nukes here. worry about that. now that she can see russia from her house, we are ready to defend georgia. experience where it counts.

 

As the "he" in the equation, I'm not quite sure how you saw my unrelenting hate towards anything American. I heard that the third eye and the telepathic, aura-related, groovy 7th sense really help.

But to come back at the topic at hand, I somewhat doubt that referring to a work of fiction (albeit a good done) is giving any weight to your argument. You see my whole point is that opinions weigh much less than facts. Science, to come back at my original, quite obvious sarcasm, is not a democracy and should never be.

It is so easy you know. 5 minutes spent on googling would've shown you that you are plain wrong. The price of getting rid of ignorance is zero, the cost of ignorance itself is infinite.

 

Ignorance on the the issue...maybe
Ignorance in life...not

Here's my resume:

Passed my High School exam, when I was in 5th grade.
Retired at the age of 29.
I am a published author.
I am an inventor.
I served in the United States Military - yeah I only assisted in the POW training and survival training for Special Forces at Camp McCall, NC
Still much potential!

I would not call that ignorance.

Who is this guy anyways! Crawl back under your rock, or at least smoke a joint and chill out.

Normally I don't brag about myself, btw. I am usually quite humble. Just could not resist.

Whats on your resume?

There is nothing wrong with being concerned over something that has the potential to kill millions of people. The problem is the overconfidence of the human race... What about unforeseen events such as floods, earthquakes, tornadoes hitting a nuclear power facility? again why build nuclear, when there are other options?

 

The other options all have limitations, too. Sure you can build windmills in the midwest, but they also get a ton of tornadoes that can easily rip those expensive contraptions into shreds of confetti. People living near the large industrial versions aren't too fond of the experience, and I doubt the birds like it much either.

Solar materials have poor energy conversion rates, and the ozone layer and the rest of the atmosphere blocks out most of the energy coming from sunlight anyway. We'd have to use a lot of space and the panels are pretty expensive, too. To get the most out of them, they have to be able to move with the sun so you can't just slap some panels on a big parking lot in the desert and have plenty of energy.

Nuclear has advantages and disadvantages like any other technology. There's no "best" way to get energy yet or the whole world would be using it already.

 

All we have to do is build them in the red states. This might sound funny but it will make it doable.
I think we need to look at the oceans for source of a lot of things. they cover most of the earth surface and probably hold the answer to many of hour problem

 

We should try harnessing all the hot gas in homebizseo's and pizzaman's posts.

 

what part of this you have a problem.
if you put the reactors in red states you won't get as much public resistance
you can have turbines in the oceans and harness the electricity. I think a company was proposing something like that in NY. i will try to find it Monday.
Aqua agriculture would be very cost effective as no cost for land and no cost for water.
a way of removing salt from water that would be feasible for poor countries would do wonders.
you are just very limited in your thinking, you might be one of those people that don't think but understand.
and you never answered my question.

 

For someone who's so qualified, you should know that no energy source is 'perfect'. Let me tell you a little about the so called 'safe' energy sources.

"A typical 1000-megawatt coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about 16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid precipitation that defaces monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes."

So, while nuclear energy might not be the perfect solution, it is certainly not as dangerous as you think it is.