John McCain on Energy, Get Nuclear Energy Now!!!!!!!

[baronmorris]

"After 3 years, the uranium goes to a treatment plant & we separate the little waste in Plutonium[!] which can be re-used..."

"[France's Civaux plant manager] Maugey says the more highly contaminated material that can't be recycled is stored above ground, while 2% of nuclear waste is mixed with molten glass to be stored deep underground.

He, like many of his compatriots, puts his hopes in future technology that may be able to render radioactive material harmless."

indefensible insanity.

[frellthat]

People like you give environmentalists a bad name. If the world were using nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels, we would not even be talking about global warming today. And the only reason we are so dependent upon fossil fuels is because self-righteous, Wikipedia-educated ignorant pricks like you have kept us from going nuclear all these years. You will never learn.

[baronmorris]

go fuck your mother. ;-)

cause that's pretty much your energy policy.

shit weasel.

[frellthat]

Pathetic.

[baronmorris]

yes, but u said:

"Uranium is not plutonium and cannot explode as such so no it is not a nuke."

The Uranium used in nuclear power CAN be used in nuclear bombs. Even if only used in a "dirty" bomb - still devastating results.

Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, even the pressure differential of water (or other fluid) at depth, all these & more are POISON-FREE sustainable, renewable, & inexpensive routes to ecologically sound power generation, which is the future.

Now go cry yourself to sleep. ;-)

[baronmorris]

Wrong. ;-)

"While U-238 has a small probability to fission spontaneously or when bombarded with fast neutrons, the much higher probability of U-235 and to a lesser degree U-233 to fission when bombarded with slow neutrons generates the heat in nuclear reactors and provides the fissile material for nuclear weapons."

"Two major types of fission bombs were built: a relatively simple device that uses U-235 and a more complicated mechanism that uses U-238-derived plutonium-239."

Wikipedia, bitch!

[baronmorris]

piling up poison for the future to deal with or die from is hardly a worthy source of pride. talk about myopic greed...

[frellthat]

Nuclear energy produces no pollution of any kind except for the solid waste. It's certainly a lot better than fossil fuels.

[baronmorris]

have u never seen the results of nuclear exposure?

bilderberg. org/iraqbaby. jpg

(remove spaces)

nevermind the source (bilderberg / iraqi)

the picture is the sort of thing ur willing to gamble on. it's not ur right to risk the health of others and of the planet itself just bc of ur hubris, ur arrogant ignorance, ur Icarus syndrome.

but here's something u can jerk off over.

dailytech. com/Miniature%20Nuclear%20Reac­tors%20to%20be%20on%20Sale%20W­ithin%205%20Years/article13389 .htm

[baronmorris]

move to 3 mile island, why don't you.

[baronmorris]

yeah, let me guess... that probability figure u quoted is from (gasp!) a paid nuclear power lobby study group.

"NOW with ADVANCED SAFETY SYSTEMS(R)" lol

& how exactly can one verify the validity of such an estimate? hmmm? accidents have happened, quite famously. human or technical errors occur, with devastating results; intentional tampering notwithstanding.

super happy lucky poison?

it's all dangerous. it's all deadly. it's all usable in weapons. it's unsustainable.

sell ur nuke stock ;-)

[frellthat]

More nuclear energy is a great idea. In Illinois, we get 50% of our electricity from nuclear fission. But yeah, let's vote for McCain anyway.

[baronmorris]

4th, building new nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamic terrorism is INSANE! If the US, EU, & much of the world is scared of the mere possibility that just one country — IRAN — might use enriched uranium from its power plants for a nuclear bomb, then WHY are they eager to spread nuclear power plants around the world? This means active uranium and spent nuclear waste in transit everywhere & piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to heavily populated urban areas.

[baronmorris]

I'm an American. I'm anti-nuclear energy.

1st, nuclear power is UNAFFORDABLE. Minimum price tag of $2 billion each. The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — currently at 20% — could exceed half a trillion dollars. In a country facing record consumer and government debt, where is the money going to come from? Consumers would pay the price in terms of higher taxes to support government subsidies and higher electricity bills.

[baronmorris]

2nd, 60 years into the nuclear era, our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. The U.S. federal government spent more than $8 billion & 20 years building an "airtight" underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the EPA concedes that the underground storage facility will leak.

[baronmorris]

Third, according to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered, and it is possible that new technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains purely speculative. Imagine investing $2 billion a piece for new nuclear plants, only to have nuclear fuel run out in less than a generation.

[baronmorris]

Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamic terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities. We should all be very worried.

[baronmorris]

Instead, we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. And we should establish a hydrogen storage infrastructure to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of power for our electricity needs and for transportation.

Our common energy future lies with the sun, not with uranium.

[frellthat]

"The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — currently at 20% — could exceed half a trillion dollars."

Um, so what? We're about to spend way more than that just bailing out these banks.

[baronmorris]

that's not a coherent argument. the numbers are just abstactions to you, it is clear.

DEADLY POISON aside, it's simply not the most pragmatic solution. oh yeah... and it's also DEADLY POISON!!

Do you own stock in nuclear or something?

lol?

[frellthat]

Deadly poison... more people die every year mining coal and drilling for oil than have ever died as a result of nuclear energy. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what you're talking about.

[baronmorris]

NAGASAKI or HIROSHIMA, anyone?

over 200,000 dead from the blasts or died of cancer. even now, the areas around these two cities in Japan have among the highest cancer incidence rate in the world.

CHERNOBYL? as many as 50,000 dead, with at least that many people living with (dying from) cancer.

that's roughly 300,000, not counting the occasional nuclear worker mishap or poisoned Russian spy. that's like 100 9/11's.

u work for (or are invested in) in nuclear, right?

full disclosure = integrity.

[baronmorris]

also, over 500 sailors have died in peace time in Soviet nuclear submarines.

then there was that guy in the FatMan&LittleBoy project. swelled up like a balloon.

& of course, the toxic avenger.

for ur comparison to coal/oil above to have any pertinence or credibility u would have to know the total number of people who have worked in or lived near a petrol work environment as compared to the total number of people who have worked in or lived near nuclear, as well as the total deaths for each.

[frellthat]

"NAGASAKI or HIROSHIMA, anyone?"

I said nuclear energy, not nuclear bombs. Don't you know the difference? Jesus Christ. You give environmentalists a bad name. No I don't work for the nuclear industry. I just try to be REASONABLY informed about topics I attempt to discuss.

And only 56 people died at Chernobyl.

[baronmorris]

perhaps you could refer to point # 4. it's just inches below. This makes nagasaki & hiroshima pertinent, u nuclear lobbying shit weasel, bc more nuclear power plants increase the chances of another hiroshima.

still waiting on full disclosure from u, as to the nature of ur alliance with the nuclear industry. Let me guess, u run a fuel rod store in texas, or own a piece of yucca mountain u can't wait to sell...

in any case ur a belligerent turd tard deserving of cancer. enjoy it! ;-)

[frellthat]

Oh gee sorry, I haven't given you "full disclosure," I guess that means I'm working for the nuclear industry. See a doctor. Paranoid schizophrenia is a sad thing.

[baronmorris]

myopic expediency is yet more sad. good luck with that. ;-)