McCain video uncovers hypocrisy on Yucca Nuclear Waste Site

[kgrandia]

Run time: 02:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34   Posted on YouTube: May 15, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 25, 2008 By DU Member: kgrandia Views on DU: 655

 
Washington, D.C.—As John McCain travels to Nevada today to raise money and tout his misguided energy proposals, a newly uncovered television interview exposes the Arizona Senator's hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste. McCain is a major proponent of storing thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste at the unproven and unsafe Yucca Mountain site and just last week proposed a building 100 new nuclear reactors—a plan that by utilities' own estimates could cost more than $1 TRILLION. Yet, in an interview posted to the YouTube website in May 2007 and uncovered today, McCain says he would not be comfortable with the waste traveling through his own home state on its way to the proposed Nevada repository.

The video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34

Transcript (beginning at 1:14):

Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain?

McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not.

[nomorenomore08]

1. For all its negatives, we may need nuclear power in the future to a certain extent.

As I said in a previous post, societies of the future will be run on some combination of solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, hydrogen, and yes, nuclear. With the inevitable decline of oil over the next several decades, a variety of solutions will likely be necessary to meet our energy needs.

That said, McCain certainly is a hypocrite, and his obsessive focus on nuclear power, while ignoring all other alternatives, is unbelievably wrong-headed.

[chknltl]

2. STRONGLY DISAGREE on nuke power

Who uses this song and dance: "We are having a minimal impact on global climate change. Green Alternatives are far too distant in the future to make a difference right now. Due to modern tech designs we are safer than ever! There really are no cheap and reasonable alternatives to what we propose. We are backed by sensible folks in the American Government." (OK unfair, neither of my choices are actually bragging about who in our government is actually backing them...likely not a smart move on their part...telling folks that you are strongly supported by neo-cons is likely bad for business.)

A. The Big Oil gang says stuff like this and yes they are strongly backed by neo-cons shills.
B. The Big Nuke gang says stuff like this and yes they are strongly backed by neo-cons shills.
C. Both of these damned corporatist profiteers say stuff like this, yep, backed by their neo-cons!

If you are wise enough not to fall for Big Oil's bullshit, I know you must be wise enough not to fall for the exact same bullshit from the pro-nuke gang either! We have barely kept these nuke assholes at bay for this long...they are crawling out from under their rocks again. There are many here, (see Energy Forum), who are on both side of the fence. Warning: one side has an over abundance of trolls. (Good chance one will turn up shortly...:scared:)

Here is a good starter anti-nuke link, check it out please. http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html

[nomorenomore08]

4. All I'm saying is that the answer to our energy needs isn't simple.

But yes, we should avoid polluting energy sources like nuclear as much as possible. And McCain's proposals are insane, but I guess that goes without saying.

[chknltl]

5. Got it...I'm glad we agree

There are quite a few DUers who are complacent re: Nuke energy...I was one myself until I got jumped by pro nuke trolls in the DU Energy Forum. It didn't take too much research on my part before I could stand up to them. It appears I may have adopted one of the traits of those pro nuke trolls...sorry about that. You are right of course that a multi-pronged energy program is quickly needed. There are a lot of good folks working on it. Check these guys out: http://www.edf.org/home.cfm They are being deliberately blocked by folks who DON'T want a green energy revolution. The Oil and Nuke gangs are not going away quietly though..there are many of us who will continue to stand against them, both here and everywhere else. Sorry again for jumpin on ya.

[chknltl]

3. 'Yucka' Mountain from Nevada's perspective

(Not that Nevada should have any say so in what gets stashed away in their mountains...:sarcasm:)

http://ag.state.nv.us/yucca/yucca.htm

I googled Catherine Cortez Masto and found the above link to her and her state's position regarding the Yucca Mountain project. The things one can learn through Google! I frankly knew nothing regarding this project, reading this convinced me that the state of Nevada has damn good reasons for being against the project. Below are 4 of the 5 reasons from that link:

"Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is dedicated to continuing the fight against the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The state’s official position is that Yucca Mountain is a singularly bad site to house the nation’s high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel for several reasons:

GEOLOGY and LOCATION: There are many unresolved scientific issues relative to the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. These issues include hydrology, inadequacy of the proposed waste package, repository design and volcanism. The Yucca site is seismically and volcanically active, porous and incapable of geologically containing the waste. Yucca's aquifer drains to the Amargosa Valley, one of Nevada's most productive agricultural regions, is adjacent to a busy and growing Nellis Air Force Base, and is only 90 miles from our largest metropolitan area, Las Vegas.

LIMITED SPACE: Yucca isn’t big enough to store all of the nation’s nuclear waste. More than 46,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste are already stored at more than 77 reactor sites across the country. That number increases by more than 2,000 tons each year. Yucca’s statutory design capacity is only 77,000 metric tons. By the time Yucca would be filled to capacity in 2036, there will still be at least the same amount of spent fuel still stored at the reaction sites, even if no new plants are built.

NATIONAL SECURITY: Contrary to DOE arguments, building the Yucca Mountain repository will not make America safer. Instead, it will give terrorists more attractive and vulnerable targets. The DOE expects more than 100,000 shipments of spent fuel to be transported to Yucca Mountain – thus creating 100,000 mobile targets. Furthermore, the DOE plans to store high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel above ground at the Yucca site for at least 100 years. This creates the largest new spent fuel storage target in the world."

(Only slightly more at link)

[ProfessorPlum]

6. That mishearing of McCain's about the nuclear waste is an

interesting Freudian slip, don't you think?