Dean's position on Yucca Mountain - for Nevadans

[Hawkeye-X]

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002152.html

Kennesaw, Ga.: Would you please tell us your views towards nuclear power? Should we build more nuclear power plants?

Howard Dean: We can not build any new nuclear power plants until we have a satisfactory way of disposing of the waste. at present a significant questions have been raised about the safety of Yucca Mountain, the disposal site in Nevada. Unless those safety questions are resolved Yucca cannot be opened and new plants must not be built.

Previously, he did support Yucca Mountain as a governor, but earlier this year Dean made a statement at alternet.org:

As governor, you supported a plan to store the nation's waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Do you still think this is a good solution?

As governor of Vermont, it was a grand idea because it would get the waste out of Vermont. But now that I'm running for president, I've got to reassess it and see what the science looks like.

[madfloridian]

1. OH NO! Dean waffled. But in such a good way.

I like the way he stated it very simply. To paraphrase:
"as governor I saw it one way, but as president I will have to have a wider view."

Addressed the safety issues as well.

[sangh0]

2. An admission that Dean didn't care about the nation

just the people who could vote for him. Politics over principle.

[RetroLounge]

4. and show me one other Gov that is different.

you can't...

[sangh0]

9. Gov Mario Cuomo

opposed the death penalty even though a majority of his supporters in his state supported it. He vetoed bills allowing capital punishment, and it eventually led to his defeat by Pataki, a Repuke who made the death penalty the centerpiece of his campaign.

you can't...

Speak for yourself.

[Scott Lee]

18. And what power does Cuoma have today?

Cat got yer tongue?

Thanks.

[sangh0]

21. Politics over principle

Dean's only defense is "whatever it takes to win", even if it means using racist symbols, flip-flopping on any issue, misportraying the facts, pretending to investigate "the science", etc

[retyred]

95. investigate "the science"?

Wasn't there a pResident that said he wanted to do that not too long ago? I seem to recall there was one, it was the same one that thought Yucca Mountain was also a good spot for "nucleer waste" too!

Wouldn't agreeing with that pResident on his great idea be a form of praise and admiration that all "Great minds do think alike"?



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[sangh0]

113. Bush* is "investigating the science"

of global warming, breast cancer, carcinogens, coal, etc

[cavebat2000]

165. Thats unsubstantiated statement

You should listen to dean before you speak.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Zing!

[madfloridian]

11. There you are!

Hi there.
:hi:

[sangh0]

23. Hi there

:hi:

[TLM]

41. Yeah some folks call that serving your constituency.

God forbid we have a candidate who actually listens to and represents the people who elected him.

[sangh0]

47. Some folks call it "unprincipled opportunism"

What will Dean do if his constituency wants pre-emptive war?

What will Dean do if his constituency doesnt want gay marriage?

What will Dean do if his constituency doesn't want third-trimester D&X and D&E's?

[ieoeja]

62. Wants? Or is best for?

Forget what the people of Vermont want. Would shipping all of the nuclear waste currently stored in Vermont to Nevada be better or worse for the people of Vermont? Okay, this might be a little selfish view by the governor of Vermont, but understandable.

Now, would it be better for everyone in the United States if the nuclear waste currently stored in Vermont were shipped to Nevada?


On the other issue, I agree with Dean. He should take into account the needs of all Americans. Even rednecks flying Confederate flags need jobs. And it would be better for them and for this country if they voted their needs instead of their racist wants.

[TLM]

67. Yeah and odly those folks are all Dean Bashers

who are trying to push other candidates.


"What will Dean do if his constituency wants pre-emptive war?"

Apples and oranges. War and waste storage are vastly different issues. We have to store nuclear waste, while we do not have to make war. But i understand that in your desperation to bash Dean, you'd attempt to argue otherwise.


"What will Dean do if his constituency doesnt want gay marriage?"

Many of them did not... yet civil rights trump the will of the majority.


"What will Dean do if his constituency doesn't want third-trimester D&X and D&E's?"

Tell them not to have them, but that they should be dictating how a doctor treats his patients.


Next?

[Romberry]

101. Uh....no.

A governor's first responsibility is to the state that elected them. You serve the interests of your constituents. When you are president, your constituency is no longer a state, it's the nation. This really should not be hard to understand.

[sangh0]

114. And how does trucking nuclear waste

over the highways of VT "serve the interests of Dean's constituents"?

[TLM]

127. Dean had two choices... and only two.

A: Keep the waste in a storage site in VT that is not safe.

B: Move the waste out of the state to the federally designated site.


"over the highways of VT "serve the interests of Dean's constituents"?"


Care to cite the news report of the major nuclear waste spill on the highways of VT?

[sangh0]

140. There are more choices

Dean could've demanded that the nuclear industry take care of it's own mess instead of passing the buck onto taxpayers and endangering people's safety (including the safety of VT residents) by trucking nuclear waste on highways

[TLM]

160. And how exactly would they CLEAN UP nuclear waste...

the whole reason it has to be stored is that it can't be CLEANED UP. The crap exists for tens of thousands of years.

"Dean could've demanded that the nuclear industry take care of it's own mess "

So you'd have him leave the waste in VT, in an inferior and unsecure site near their water supply, and do nothing while demanding that someone else deal with it.

[cavebat2000]

166. lol sangh0

These people have no substantial point. They are just desperate for SOMETHING.

[SEAburb]

3. He didn't answer the question, he side stepped it

Is that leadership?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eileen_d]

25. And there you have it!

Criticize Dean; Get called a Bush supporter. I'm sure looking forward to working for Dean's campaign should he get the nod :eyes:

[Eloriel]

138. Well, perhaps if you want to work for Nominee Dean

after he's nominated, you'll behave a little better. Else I'm sure you can expect the same treatment.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

26. "wanting more information"???

About nuclear waste? You mean, Dean isn't already familiar with issue?

Look what happened the last time someone who needs on-the-job training landed in the White House!

[TLM]

43. No, more information on the safety of yucca Mt as a storage site...

But nice attempt to dishonestly spin what he said.

[sangh0]

48. Why didn't he get that info earlier?

Or doesn't he care about Americans who live in other states?

[TLM]

71. For the same reason I don't worry about your credit report...

It's not my job.


Yucca Mt. wasn't in Dean's state, so he as Gov had no say over it and no authority. Dean also had no say over the federal mandate that the waste had to be secured.

As president he will, so it will now be his responsibility, whereas it wasn't before. Are you really so desperate for Dean bashing fodder that you'll attack Dean for not running NV as well as running VT?

[redqueen]

86. Truly despicable.

"It's not my job."

:puke:

That refrain is the most cold-hearted, uncaring response a person can give.

I've heard it used WAY too many times by Republicans, who toss it out while explaining why they don't care that the children of people living in poverty have fewer chances of success in life.

Oh well... I guess I'm being all 'weepy and liberal' again. :(

[TLM]

93. What would you have Dean do?

A: Keep the waste in a storage site in VT that is not safe.

B: Move the waste out of the state to the federally designated site.


Those are the two choices. Dean had no authority over the site selection in NV, nor over the federal mandate to secure waste. THere is nothing cold hearted about it... it wasn;t his job. Dean's authority ended at the border of VT.

It would be like if you worked as a mannager of a local Vons and I came to complain to you about the way the Ralph's across town was running their store. That's not your job, and you have no control over the other store. So what are you supposed to do?

[sangh0]

115. How about a little honesty?

Dean could wake up and notice how unsafe it is for both Vermonters and the nation to have nuclear waste trucked across the nation on our highways so it could be deposited in a site that is not known to be safe. Dean might educate himself about how providing a "safe" federally designated site enables the expansion of the nuclear power industry which endangers us all, including Vermonters.

It would be like if you worked as a mannager of a local Vons and I came to complain to you about the way the Ralph's across town was running their store. That's not your job, and you have no control over the other store. So what are you supposed to do?

Is Ralph's endangering the health and lives of the entire nation? The nuclear power industry is.

[TLM]

125. Answer the question....

"Dean could wake up and notice how unsafe it is for both Vermonters and the nation to have nuclear waste trucked across the nation on our highways so it could be deposited in a site that is not known to be safe."

First the site in NV is known to be loads safer tha the site in VT.

Second, do you actualy think Dean doesn't know how unsafe nuclear waste disposal is? Knowing it is unsafe does nothing to change the fact that it exists and has to be dealth with somehow.

So what would you have Dean do with this waste?

A: Keep the waste in a storage site in VT that is not safe.

B: Move the waste out of the state to the federally designated site.



"Dean might educate himself about how providing a "safe" federally designated site enables the expansion of the nuclear power industry which endangers us all, including Vermonters."

What a lame argument... the nuclear industry or no, the waste we have must be stored. You can whine all you want about how bad the situation is, but that doesn;t do a damn thing to fix it or to store the waste that we already have.

Also, Dean is a major supporter of alternative energy development. One of your favortie little snide shots at Dean is that he wanted to build a coal powered electric plant in VT... yet you always leave out the part about that being suggested as a way to stop using the nuclear plant.

But we all know that no matter what decison Dean makes on any issue, you'll attack him. Had he left the waste in VT, you'd attack him for that.

It would be like if you worked as a mannager of a local Vons and I came to complain to you about the way the Ralph's across town was running their store. That's not your job, and you have no control over the other store. So what are you supposed to do?

Is Ralph's endangering the health and lives of the entire nation? The nuclear power industry is.

[sangh0]

129. I did

In case you didn't notice, I'll repeat:

Dean should be opposed to the nuclear power industry, and should do nothing to enable them. Dean should have fought to get the producers of the nuclear waste to take responsibility for their own messes, instead of letting them pass the buck to American taxpayers.

Dean should have used the opportunity to demonstrate the inherent safety hazards posed by the nuclear power industry which CAN'T SAFELY DISPOSE it own's waste.

What a lame argument... the nuclear industry or no, the waste we have must be stored. You can whine all you want about how bad the situation is, but that doesn;t do a damn thing to fix it or to store the waste that we already have.

What a lame argument. If there were no nuclear industry, there would be no nuclear waste. And trucking the waste doesn't do a damn thing about the dangers nuclear waste poses to Vermonters because more waste will be created unless people like Dean stop enabling the nuclear industry by caving in to their demands.

Also, Dean is a major supporter of alternative energy development. One of your favortie little snide shots at Dean is that he wanted to build a coal powered electric plant in VT

I never said anything about that. You're just making it up.

But we all know that no matter what decison Dean makes on any issue, you'll attack him. Had he left the waste in VT, you'd attack him for that.

More "attack the critic, ignore the issue".

[TLM]

145. No you tried to hide behind semantics...

"Dean should be opposed to the nuclear power industry, and should do nothing to enable them. Dean should have fought to get the producers of the nuclear waste to take responsibility for their own messes, instead of letting them pass the buck to American taxpayers.

Dean should have used the opportunity to demonstrate the inherent safety hazards posed by the nuclear power industry which CAN'T SAFELY DISPOSE it own's waste."


So keep the waste in VT or move it. You still have not answered the question.


"What a lame argument. If there were no nuclear industry, there would be no nuclear waste."

LOL! Yeah and what's that got to do with the reality of the fact we do have a nuclear industry and we do have nuclear waste that needs to be stored.

Your ideological purity argument doesn’t do a damn thing to deal with this waste. The fact is Dean has worked to replace the nuclear plant in VT with other sources of energy, but stopping the production of new waste does not address the waste that already exists.


"And trucking the waste doesn't do a damn thing about the dangers nuclear waste poses to Vermonters because more waste will be created unless people like Dean stop enabling the nuclear industry by caving in to their demands."

Oh so you would not clean up the waste, allow it to remain unsecured and near ground water, in order to force the nuclear plant to stop making waste. Nice plan... and what was that you were saying about caring about the safety of Vermonters? Looks like you care not one whit about the safety of those people since you want to force them to keep the waste in their inferior storage site in order to basically teach them a lesson and make them stop using nuclear power.

[blm]

42. It's typical Deanspeak. Not exactly the straightshooter he claims to be.

On almost any issue he does the same.

[cavebat2000]

167. UH

It sounds like your not reading what hes saying.

[redqueen]

171. I think we are

We're reading that Dean, as Governor, didn't care if the site was considered unsafe.

Now that he's running for president, he's concerned.

[teevee]

173. what's good about it?

he basically said "I don't give a shit about americans living in Nevada, because they don't vote for me."


this is putting politics over the safety of people's lives.

[eileen_d]

6. Can you say "Not In My Back Yard?"

I eagerly await the arrival of the Dean Defense Team, but sorry folks - this is weak.

[rucky]

7. The Consistancy of Dean's Position:

He's loyal to whom he represents.

If Yucca Mountain was a done deal, all he could really say as Governor is "not in my backyard".

It's a federal issue, and now he's running for federal government. His position changed in the best interests of the entire country.

[eileen_d]

12. I see your point - but -

It would have been nice if he had a broader view of "best interests" back then.

[Skwmom]

15. Loyal to whom he represents?

Seems like his loyalty to IBM and some other corporations trumped his loyalty to some of the common folks he represented in VT. From what I read it seems like he enjoyed humiliating some of those constituents.

[sangh0]

27. Making his constituents pay for IBM's highway

is an odd way to demonstrate his loyalty to them, but maybe that's just me.

[TLM]

46. Yet as usual for Dean bashers you won't post any quotes or specifics

because context shows that the attacks are baseless.

"From what I read it seems like he enjoyed humiliating some of those constituents."

Yeah that must be why they re-elected him 5 times in a row.

[blm]

8. Dean was given the science by environmentalists and Dems, but he chose

to believe the industry's science back then.

What "science" has changed, Howie?

[sangh0]

10. "I've got to reassess it and see what the science looks like."

Does Dean think scientists may have recently discovered that nuclear waste makes men's penis' grow larger?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

28. more "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

from a Dean supporter, complete with the kind of mature language we've grown to expect from them

[madfloridian]

14. Shame on you for never giving the benefit of anything to him.

You do this all the time.

He gave a very honest answer, and you know it. It was a good answer.

[blm]

19. shame on Dean for calling liberal Kerry, "Bushlite"

and for his campaign to be smearing Kerry as a "corrupt Washington insider."

Guess that doesn't bother you, even knowing that Kerry exposed MORE government corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history?

You want to talk about SHAME?

[Scott Lee]

24. He IS Bushlite. Once again you fault Dean for speaking truth

what a laugh...

[blm]

29. Dean pushes for deregulation of electricity as governor

and you call Kerry, "Bushlite"...what color is the sky there?

Deregulating electricity is as BFEE as you get.

[sangh0]

33. deregulate electricity?

Sounds like Bush*-lite to me.

[TLM]

49. LOL yeah please show me where the BFEE encouraged...

Net metering and alternative energy.

The reason Dean supported deregulation was so that small alternative producers could get into the markets and they could set up net metering. Then when he saw what Enron did he felt the risk for abuse was too great.

But don’t let that stop you from attacking Dean for beating your guy Kerry.

[sangh0]

55. Their most recent energy bill

which they claim encourages the development of alternative energy.

[TLM]

59. Ok need we go over the difference between...

claiming something encoruages alternative energy and showing that it actualy does encourage alternative energy?


Of course the pukes will claim their program does this, but the facts show it does not. Whereas VT has net metering now and VT does have viable alternative enrgy producers in wind and solar.

[sangh0]

63. Dean makes lots of claims

It reminds me of some other people.

[TLM]

75. More "attack the critics, ignore the issue"

from a Dean Basher.

[sangh0]

117. Nope

it's responsive to your argument about what Dean "claims"

[TLM]

128. More "attack the critics, ignore the issue"

from a Dean Basher.

[sangh0]

130. Nope, non Deanies "address the issue, ignore the apologists"

.

[TLM]

146. More "attack the critics, ignore the issue"

from a Dean Basher.

[sangh0]

30. Dean is Bush*-lite

He made his constituents pay for IBM's highway, just like Bush* makes us all pay for Exxon's war.

[TLM]

Um don't the people of a state pay for all inner state highways?

Are you folks so desperate for somethig with which to attack Dean you're attacking him for building a road in VT that supported and promoted the businesses which lifted the state's economy out of the crapper?

[sangh0]

64. The road was for IBM

and in other states, they often make the corp pay when their expansion requires additional infrastructure. When states make agreements with Indians to run casinos, they get money from the casinos to support the additional roads, sewage, etc needed to support the increased demands.

Dean preferred that his constituents pay for it instead of burdening IBM

[TLM]

76. And how much money did IBM put into VT's economy?

And again as ususal no links, or quotes or anything that might add some context to this accusation.

I mean this is the best you got... Dean built a road in VT using tax payer funds. Oh god, a road, that people in VT can use and that will keep IBM in VT adding tax $$$ to the state economy, providing jobs, and creating revenue.

[sangh0]

116. A Republican couldn't have said it better

"What good for business is good for America"

[TLM]

131. More "attack the critics, ignore the issue"

from a Dean Basher.

[cavebat2000]

168. And that didn't just come from your @$$?

Sounds like just another cynic with out anything REAL.

[TLM]

51. So we see the motivation is not truth, but to attack Dean

Because Dean beat the tar out of Kerry for supporting the war and no child left behind, and the 350 billion tax cut.

Dean is beating Kerry and that's a crime that BLM can not stand.

[cavebat2000]

Yep

You hit the nail on the head TLM.

[cavebat2000]

170. Yep

You hit the nail on the head TLM.

[Andromeda]

98. Kerry is a hypocrite...

and so are some of the other Democrats who voted for IWR, the Patriot Act and the $87B to finance the war in Iraq. At least Gephardt was consistent. He voted for IWR AND the $87B Iraq package. I'm not saying I agree with it but at least he stood by his principles and he didn't contradict himself.

Kerry voted no on the $87B and no matter how you spin it that means Kerry is a hypocrite. He voted for IWR for political reasons and voted no on the $87B which means he was for sending troops to fight in Iraq but voted not to give money to support our military while they're getting their asses shot off.

If he voted for the war he should at least have voted for the $87B. Gee, maybe that's "waffling." He's embarrassed by his IWR vote but there is no way he can backtrack now and change that no matter how much he bashes Dean to take attention away from his own misdeeds. It hasn't helped his poll numbers to be so inconsistent. If he would just come out and admit it was wrong for him to vote for the IWR I would have more respect for him but he's too much of a coward to do that so he votes to withhold the money instead.

Too little too late.

[Scott Lee]

22. Scientific information can change over time

But I'm sure a Doctor like Howard Dean already knows this. He's happy to have assisted you.

[sangh0]

31. Breaking News!

Nuclear waste is good for you!

(Brought to you by Dean for America)

[SahaleArm]

37. LOL *nm*

*nm*

[TLM]

60. Pathetic spin.... the science is not regarding nuclear waste...

but regarding the safety of Yucca Mt as a storage site.


THe fact you must resort to such blatant spin shows how weak your position really is.

[blm]

38. The science changed from 2 years ago?

Please, Howie, fill us in, since your brilliant scientific mind believed that environmentalists and the other Dems were wrong just two years ago, and agreed with the energy industry and Bush's scientists. Please fill us in.....take your time, we're listening.

[Andromeda]

100. You want science -

The Lawrence Livermore Natiional Laboratory is currently working on the Yucca Mountain Program and Repository Science Program:

http://ymp.llnl.gov/projects.html

1. Engineered barrier,system, materials, characterization---an ongoing study of corrosion occurring on the surface of the Alloy container holding the nuclear waste over long periods of time up to 10,000 years.

2. Long-Term Corrosion Test Facility---ongoing data collection for evaluating corrosion rates and behaviors over different time intervals. The results can be extrapolated for up to 10,000 years.

3. Near-field environment characterization---ongoing tests to determine how the heat and radioactivity interact with rock, water and how the immediate environment surrounding the repository will change over a thousands of years.

4. Waste form characterization---ongoing studies on how the vitrified materials will hold up for the next thousand years when they come in contact with water, minerals and glass.

Nothing is absolute in science because our knowledge base is constantly changing and evolving.

They have years and years to battle this Yucca Mountain issue until they settle on a suitable site for storage. Five New England Governors sent their Senators a letter requesting the urgency of storing spent nuclear fuel from operating or decommissioning nuclear power plants after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. These governors urged that once the review process was completed that they should expedite the recommendation to the President.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=229

Here is a list of the governors that made this request:

John Rowland, Connecticut
Angus king, Maine
Argeo Paul Celluci, Massachusetts
Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
Howard Dean, Vermont

You'll notice that Howard Dean was not alone in his concern for his state. Each governor on the list was equally concerned for the citizens of their respective states.

Here is Howard Dean's letter to Richard A. Meserve, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Dean Chairman Meserve:

The tragedy of September 11 calls for review and reassessment of security at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. I am aware that in 1998 and again in February 2001 Vermont Yankee received violations as a result of your agency's testing of the plant's security readiness. I am also aware of the NRC's policy of allowing licenses to grant personnel unescorted access to the plant before completion of full security background checks. This policy resulted in granting access to a person who otherwise may not have been allowed at Vermont Yankee.

<snip>

I would also stress that last week's terrorist action makes it imperative that the federal government live up to its commitment to store spent fuel at a national facility.

I am aware of the Safeguards Information category of confidentially and will work with you in any manner necesary to receive the information needed to assure the safety of Vermont citizens and property. It is important to have answers to these Questions expeditiously.

Nowhere in that letter did Howard Dean express indifference and callousness for the safety of the citizens of any other state nor did he specifically mention Yucca Mountain.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your spin. We know you have a lot more fun when you tell the story you like.

[Skwmom]

13. So before the science didn't matter even though many

people were pointing out the science was faulty? Can we say major trust issue.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

32. More "attack the critics, ignore the issue"

from a Dean supporter

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

50. more "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

complete with the mature language we've come to expect from Dean and his supporters

[KaraokeKarlton]

56. I'm not attacking you

Believe me, if I were you'd know it. I'm simply telling you that the criticism you've chosen to use is bullshit. Use accurate criticism and truthful information and I won't have any reason at all to tell you that you're criticism is baseless.

[sangh0]

66. more "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

No, you're not attacking me. I was faltterd when you said "the criticism you've chosen to use is bullshit"

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

78. Doesn't matter.... this is what this basher does when the spin is called

and the false premises pointed out... they attack you, accuse you of attacking them, then repeat the same crap over and over until you finaly ignore them, at which point they claim victory.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

103. DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

(More mature responses that youve come to expect...)

[curse10]

106. ha ha!

So clever! God forbid we actually talk about an issue that Dean is a little shaky on.

[sangh0]

34. Why won't Dean's supporters defend him?

Only one Dean supporter has managed to post without breaking the rules, and that post doesn't defend Dean. Why can't they defend their candidate?

[Ripley]

35. You mean defend him changing his mind?

Yeah, it doesn't bother me.

Kind of like Kucinich. He was anti-Choice forever. As I understand it, he changed his position to pro-Choice when he decided to run for President because on a national level he felt he had to represent more people (or something like that).

What's the difference?

All candidates have done this on one issue or another. I'm sure if you told me who you support I could bring one up for him or her.

[sangh0]

36. Weak defense

1) Saying "it doesn't bother me" isn't a defense. It's a statement of how you feel.

2) Saying "other people have changed their position" is also not a defense. Two wrongs do not make a right.

All candidates have done this on one issue or another. I'm sure if you told me who you support I could bring one up for him or her.

Al Sharpton.

[Egnever]

45. Whats to defend?

He was doing what was good for his state when he was in vermont and now hes doing whats good for the country.

Unless of course you think the governor of vermont should decide where the nations nuclkear waste goes I see nothing wrong with either of his positions. I like them both actually.

Clearly this will be used by Dean bashers to try to make him look bad.

I find nothing whatsoever wrong with his position here.

Whats your problem with it ?

I am not sure what you find objectionable about his position.

[sangh0]

52. So Dean didn't care about the lives of Nevadans?

Whats your problem with it ?

I am not sure what you find objectionable about his position.

The blatant disregard for human life. I'm kind of big on that.

[Egnever]

61. your kinda big on something

thats for sure.

It has yet to be proven that Yucca mountain would pose any risk to nevadans. So your advancing a completely false notion here. But aside from that the waste has to go somewhere I dont think it matters where it went you would say he was trying to kill the people in the state that recieves it.

His job as govenor of Vermont was to dispose of the waste. Yucca mountain was advanced as the place to do it. He encouraged his senators to vote for it in order to have a place for the nuclear waste they are producing in Vermont. With a laqck of any other viable alternative he was doing exactly the right thing for Vermont.

Nope I have absolutely no problem with that.

If perhaps there was a better alternative site and he chose yucca mountain over a site that apeared to be safer then you might have a leg to stand on. As it is though Yucca mnt is /was the only one being proposed at the time so he did exactly the right thing for Vermonters by trying to do what he could to provide a safe storage site for thier waste.

Again it has to go somewhere. You have a viable alternative in mind? Or perhaps you prefer it sits in temporary storage facilities where it is definately unsafe for local residents.

[sangh0]

69. Yep

It has yet to be proven that Yucca mountain would pose any risk to nevadans. So your advancing a completely false notion here

Not at all. In Dean's own words, he gave no consideration to the safety of the site. All he considered was how it affected the citizens of VT.


Again it has to go somewhere. You have a viable alternative in mind? Or perhaps you prefer it sits in temporary storage facilities where it is definately unsafe for local residents.

I don't see why you would prefer "unsafe for Nevadans" over "unsafe for Vermonters"

[TLM]

80. You continue to ignore the fact with which you were presented..

"It has yet to be proven that Yucca mountain would pose any risk to nevadans. "


"I don't see why you would prefer "unsafe for Nevadans" over "unsafe for Vermonters""



How about unsafe vermonters vs an unaffected nevadans? So far as I know nobody lives near the storage site a yucca mt., radioactive waste is cretianly nothing new to NV, and the storage sites in VT are not secure nor safe.


So really what you are saying is you want Dean to keep nuclear waste in VT, in unsafe storage, over groundwater supplies, rather than allow the material to be stored in Yucca Mountian.

So you issue is not one of protecting life, because you're happy to poison folks in vermont. Your motivation is nothing beyond taking any oppertunity to attack Dean.

[curse10]

81. The move of the waste from Vermont to Nevada affects more than people

in those states.

Do you think it's just going to magically appear there?

When I lived in Colorado the proposed route the waste would take came within miles of where I live and a mile where my parents live.

It's not like Vermont and NEvada are right next door. A lot can happen in those few thousand miles.

[TLM]

94. True the travel is dangerous...

however Dean also have no authoirty over those states... his power ended at the border of VT.

[curse10]

102. funny

for someone who is always saying Kerry should have foreseen the consequences of his actions with regard to is IWR vote, the same just doesn't apply to his candidate.

Not surprised really. Glad to know governors are supposed to be just self-serving assholes.

[sangh0]

118. Dean ignored the dangers to Vermonters

Dean created by allowing nuclear waste to be transported over VT's roads. Kerry is supposed to be able to predict the future, but Dean can ignore the obvious dangers of transporting nuclear waste on VT's highways and his supporters, once again, ignore the issue, and attack the critics

[TLM]

142. How would you transport it?

Dean did not ignore the dangers.

Unless you'd care to cite the news article about the huge nuclear waste spill in VT that resulted from the transport of this material, you're just making crap up to attack Dean.

"Kerry is supposed to be able to predict the future"

Nope, just remember the past.

[cavebat2000]

172. Just like kerry ingored the obvious and voted for the war

You see both people play this game. Don't act like Kerry is any better than Dean.

[TLM]

141. The difference is that Kerry had the option to vote no on the IWR

"for someone who is always saying Kerry should have foreseen the consequences of his actions with regard to is IWR vote, the same just doesn't apply to his candidate."


A false premise. First Kerry should have foreseen the fact Bush would abuse the power they were granting him, because Kerry, as his supporters keep claiming, did all this investigation of Bush Sr and his abuse of power. Kerry knew what these folks would do with war powers, because this same group did the same kind of crap before.

Secondly, Dean is well aware of the consequences of his choice to move waste from VT, just as he is aware of the greater consequences of leaving it unsecured in the inferior VT storage site.


"Not surprised really. Glad to know governors are supposed to be just self-serving assholes."

Wow a Governor's job is to run their state, imagine that. Their authority ends at the border of their state. So what would you have Dean do? He had no authority over NV site selection, nor how the waste is moved across country.

So Dean could keep waste in VT or move it. I assume you would prefer he kept it in VT in unsecured and in an inferior storage site that was located near ground water supplies.

[curse10]

151. I'm not saying it should stay in Vermont

I'm saying that Nevada isn't a much better option, and Dean should have known that. The last thing we need are governors dumping their problems onto other states. He should have demanded better "science" then.

And, btw, Kerry voted against the Yuccan Mountain proposal.

[Egnever]

154. why I'snt nevada a much better option?

Nevada is a big huge desert not much here to spoil as far as natural resources go. There has allready been extensive nuclear testing here. Its nothing new to nevada.

Where would be better for this stuff? I have to dissagree with you Nevada is a much better choice for this stuff than Vermont. The only reason for Yucca mountain to be seen as a bad choice is its proximity to Las Vegas. If not for it being close to Las Vegas I cant think of a better state for this stuff than Nevada and its baren deserts.

[curse10]

155. Yes, let's put Nevadans at danger

just because their state isn't as lush and pretty as vermont :eyes:

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people put at risk during the long transportation of the waste

[Egnever]

159. Sory but that argument is stupid

The waste has to go somewhere. It will have to be transported to wherever the final destination is.

Where is better than Nevada?

Where would you put it so it didnt have to be transported.

They didnt do nuclear testing out here for no reason you know. Nevada is a baren wasteland for the most part.

[redqueen]

169. *sigh*

If you'd followed the debate at the time, you might remember that the site they picked, Yucca Mountain, is geologically unfit for burying nuclear waste.

Has nothing to do with barren wasteland. It's about the stability of the ground it's going to be buried in.

[TLM]

161. You didn;t answer the question... surprise. Why is NT not an option.

It isn't like NV does have a history of hosting nuclear material.


It is not an issue of NV being as lush and pretty as VT. It is an issue of NV not having their storage site near the water supply for the state, not having lots of people living near the site, and having the geology to have the site dry and underground.


"Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people put at risk during the long transportation of the waste"

So you wouldn;t transport the waste... you'd leave it where it is?

[RetroLounge]

107. Yawn

:boring:

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

105. Yawn

:boring:

[cavebat2000]

164. His arguement sounds good to me

Completely Logical. What's the big deal?

[sangh0]

39. Why won't Dean supporters defend Dean?

Only one Dean supporter has managed to post without breaking the rules, and that post doesn't defend Dean. Why can't they defend their candidate?

[ulysses]

40. what's to defend?

John Edwards and a host of other Dems voted to open Yucca (http://www.nukewatch.org/yucca/votes/partyvote.html). I'm pleased that he's (edit: "he" being Dean) rethinking his position.

[sangh0]

53. I'd be more pleased

if he showed concern for people's lives and health, and not just how it affects his political career

[Egnever]

65. isnt that what hes doing?

make up your mind

[sangh0]

70. Nope

He hasn't shown any concern for the safety issues. In his own words, his concerns are political, not humanitarian

[TLM]

143. On the contrary... there are two posts in this thread

that quote Dean expressing his concern for safety issues... both on the security of storage in VT and of the site in NV.

[ulysses]

79. quite the ideological purist, aren't we?

May I assume you're directing the same level of anger at Edwards? I haven't even heard that he's changed his mind on the issue.

[sangh0]

119. More "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

Edwards position doesn't justify Dean's, which I noticed you didn't defend.

[ulysses]

176. just noting the hypocrisy.

If Yucca Mtn and nuclear waste disposal are valid issues - and I'd agree that they are - then they're valid issues for all the candidates, not just Dean.

As to the justification thing - I don't approve of Dean's former position on Yucca, so I don't feel any compulsion to defend it. I approve of his rethinking the thing, so I see nothing there to defend. Your refusal to defend Edwards' vote (not just position but vote) is likewise noted.

The fact is that as long as we're producing the shit, we have to put it somewhere. Nevada doesn't deserve to be the nation's repository for nuclear waste, but who *does* deserve it? NIMBYs all around, and I can't blame anyone for it. What we need is a better national discussion on nuclear energy.

[RetroLounge]

108. Yawn

:boring:

[Egnever]

54. Heres what he said in Vegas

"Now, you¹re going to ask me about Yucca Mountain so I¹m going to answer it. In 1996, I wrote a letter to my senators saying they oughta vote for Yucca Mountain because we got a nuclear power plant and I wanted to get the stuff out of my state. Having run for president, I have seen the light. I¹m not going to promise you I¹m going to be against Yucca Mountain, but if I become president, here¹s what I¹m going to do. We¹re going to have a complete safety review. We¹re going to stop construction and have a complete safety review. I am not persuaded by the transportation argument, although I am persuaded by the safety argument. I worry deeply about corrosive nuclear waste rotting through casks and having the stuff buried all that far underground. So we are going to revisit this stuff, and have some scientists who are not paid in the nuclear power industry and try and figure out what exactly we are going to do."

He may end up suporting it in the end if the science shows it to be safe. We wont know till the studies are done.

It has to go somewhere though just being against yucca mouintain doesnt get the job done you need an alternative. This stuff isnt going away for hundreds of thousands of years.

[Hep]

58. Damn him

and his objectivity!

[Egnever]

68. yea hes a real bastard

As someone else said. I can hardly control my rage as I write out my donation to his campaign.

[blm]

72. Except Dean rejected the science provided him by environmentalists and

their Dem allies just two years ago. What science has changed?

[TLM]

83. What science was provided him?

Care to cite something specific?


And the quote clearly shows Dean wants an objective safety review, not the spin from one side or the other.

[sangh0]

120. The science of trucking nuclear waste on VT's highways

which even you admit is unsafe.

[TLM]

149. Sure is it unsafe.... driving with no nuclear waste is unsafe.

half a million people die every year in the US in car crashes while driving with no nuclear waste involved at all.

So there is no way to transport anything with absolute safety. The question is, is it safer to move the stuff to a secure site, than to leave it in a storage site that isn't up to the task of storing it.


You keep attacking the use of trucks... so how would you move the waste? You can not just pretend it doesn't exist or cry that if there was no nuclear energy there'd be no nuclear waste. There is waste and it has to be dealt with.

So what would you do... move it or keep it in VT?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

77. Dim Bulb Dean: "Having run for president, I have seen the light."

This is proof that Dean is not to be confused with a true, big picture kind of guy. And it is also a not very bright admission of his blindered view of the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel. But worst of all, it is not very honest. All of the concerns of scientists and Nevadans were known back when he signed onto the plan. The difference is now he wants their votes.

He should never have said it. It is absurd pandering to votes... and other stuff.

[TLM]

85. Do you comprehend the difference between state power and federal power?

The state of VT has no say over NV. As a state officer, DEan had no say on the federal level nor on the state level in NV. His say was over VT only, and the question he had to answer was move the waste out or keep the waste here.

"This is proof that Dean is not to be confused with a true, big picture kind of guy."

LOL! Yeah a real big picture guy would have been oversteping his authority and trying to run NV from VT.


" And it is also a not very bright admission of his blindered view of the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel. But worst of all, it is not very honest."

It is 100% honest... his concern was for his state when he was in charge of his state. As a president his concern would be the whole nation. And the fact is there is NO safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel. There is only dangerous and less dangerous, and the fact is that Yucca MT is less dangerous than the storage site in VT.


" All of the concerns of scientists and Nevadans were known back when he signed onto the plan."

Concerns are not facts. As Dean said he wants objective facts, not the spin from one side or the other.


"The difference is now he wants their votes."


The difference is that now he will be in a position where the situation in NV is his responsiblity, whereas it wasn't before.

[redqueen]

89. Not exactly.

"Yeah a real big picture guy would have been oversteping his authority and trying to run NV from VT."

I think the implication is that a 'big picture' person would speak out on how poor the science backing the site was.

"The difference is that now he will be in a position where the situation in NV is his responsiblity, whereas it wasn't before."

IMO this attitude is part of the reason this country... and probably many others... is this attitude, that because it impacts someone somewhere else, it's no big deal.

There is objective truth. There is right and there is wrong. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying the 'science' backing Yucca Mountain as a repository was very bad. The right thing to do would have been to address that fact, not ignore it because it didn't impact people living in VT.

[TLM]

96. Please try to be honest...

"IMO this attitude is part of the reason this country... and probably many others... is this attitude, that because it impacts someone somewhere else, it's no big deal."


No the idea is that because it happens outside the state where Dean is Gov, Dean has no authority over it.

[sangh0]

135. You be honest

You know that the nuclear waste wouldn't get to NV using the Starship Enterprise's transporter. You know it would be trucked over highways, including VT's highways. You know that this is dangerous.

No the idea is that because it happens outside the state where Dean is Gov, Dean has no authority over it.

Dean had authority over his own state's highways, and Dean had no problem using those highways to truck nuclear waste even though that is dangerous for his constituents.

[TLM]

147. Still waiting for you to cite the news story of the big VT nuclear spill

that resulted from the transport of this waste.

Because, if it did not happen, then th transportation was in fact safer than leaving the waste in the inferior storage site.


"You know that the nuclear waste wouldn't get to NV using the Starship Enterprise's transporter. You know it would be trucked over highways, including VT's highways. You know that this is dangerous."

How would you have them transport it?

Or would you have them simply leave the waste in VT's poor storage site?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

110. If it is 100% honest then it is more evidence of his stupidity

and shortsightedness. "Out of sight out of mind" Dean. And his statement: "Now I have seen the light" goes in the ever growing pantheon of dumb things Dean has said.

[TLM]

150. Would you please tell us the right decision in this case?

I see a lot of the usual Dean Bashers happy to attack Dean for making the wrong decision... so what's the right choice?

Keep the waste in VT in an inferior storage site?

Dean was honest in saying when he was Gov of VT his focus was on VT, and now that he is seeking higher office he'll be expanding his focus. I see nothing wrong with that at all... but then I'm not cravenly desperately looking for anything at all with which to attack Dean.

[redqueen]

156. The right decision

would have been to recognize THEN what he seems to be willing to recognize only NOW that he's running for pres -- that the Yucca Mountain site is UNSAFE.

[TLM]

162. So you'd have him keep the waste in VT

at a site that was considerbly less safe than Yucca MT?

[redqueen]

174. Yes

He even could have used the situation to raise awareness of the issue.

The energy bill currently being pushed through includes huge subsidies for nuclear power companies.

Unfortunately it was easier for him to think it was 'great'.

Oh well... missed opportunity...

[RetroLounge]

109. Yes, Proof.

:boring:

[TLM]

82. And once again we see how a little context and a direct quote

blows the Dean basher's spin right the hell out of the water.

This is EXACTLY why these folks never cite sources, post links or provide full quotes. Because each time they do we see Dean's position is one of objective fair reasoned pragmatic progress.

[sangh0]

121. Kepp repeating that. Maybe someone will be fooled someday

but for all of Dean's self-interested blather, it was dangerous to ship nuclear waste by truck when he was Governor, and it's still dangerous today.

[TLM]

152. More "attack the critics, ignore the issue"

from a Dean Basher.

[Hep]

57. Wow

I know it can't be good to enter this thread when half of the posts are made by mean spirited Dean Haters on my ignore list, but what the hell.

I guess for some people it isn't enough that Dean has made the right decision. I suppose he will now have to fly around the earth really really fast to trn back time and fix everything.

[curse10]

73. Another reason to not support Dean

how can anyone say this isn't waffling?

He only now chooses to educate himself about the science of something that not only affected the people of Nevada, but those of his own state?

And he's not exactly in good company- repugs were the primary supporters of opening up Yucca. Hmmm... will Nevadans keep this in mind when they go to the voting booths? I bet they do.

[TLM]

88. Yeah NV is a red state...

so obviously the people were not that upset with republicans for supporting Yucca Mt.

"how can anyone say this isn't waffling?"

Easy, he isn't waffling. Dean was not in charge of NV nor did he have any say over the federal mandate to secure the waste. Dean had only one choice, keep the waste in vt where they knew for a fact it wasn't safe or move it out of VT where it would be safer.

For all the arguments about Yucca Mt. there is no argument that it is less safe than the site in VT.

"He only now chooses to educate himself about the science of something that not only affected the people of Nevada, but those of his own state?"

No, he only now is running for president and so now that he will actualy be in a position of authority over this process, he wants objective reports on the safety that are not the spin from one side or the other.

[Punkingal]

90. FYI....

Bush/Cheney LIED about Yucca Mt. during the campaign, and said they were against it. Nevada would not have been red otherwise. Don't for one second believe that is not a HUGE issue here.

[curse10]

104. So...

he only chooses to educate himself now. And now that he's running for president he decides to look at the consequences of such a decision. Now, I know, and everyone else in this thread knows, that Dean didn't choose the site. That's not the point. You just can't have it both ways. As a governor he thought Yucca was a "grand idea." Now, since he has his eyes on a bigger prize, he's "reassessing" So, now the people of Vermont get screwed instead of the people of Nevada?

I love how people who don't support Dean all "spin" the issue, when, in reality, there ain't nothing but spin from Dean supporters in this thread. Just admit it. He was wrong. It's not too hard. Dean was wrong. He should never have thought transporting nuclear waste half way across the country was a "grand idea." And it shouldn't have taken him running for president for him to figure it out.

[Zomby Woof]

111. perfect

Dean was wrong. He should never have thought transporting nuclear waste half way across the country was a "grand idea." And it shouldn't have taken him running for president for him to figure it out.

:thumbsup:

[Hawkeye-X]

122. Excuse me?

No spin here. This is a No Spin Zone </O'Reilly>

First of all, he was GOVERNOR when he supported the Yucca Mtn as a depositry for nuclear waste, because he wanted to move it out of his own home state. Remember, he was thinking for Vermont at that time, and had no mandate on Nevada.

Second, when he is running for president, he has to change his overall view on national policies, not just Vermont, thus realizing that Yucca Mt was not of sound science, and wanted more research/review on it before making a informed decision (unlike * making the informed decision after lying to Nevadans that Yucca Mt idea for a depositry is opposed)

Reality: Dean was looking from two different perspectives, one as a governor, and the other as a presidential candidate which has NOTHING to do with spin or flip-flops, and you must understand that looking from a local perspective is different from looking from the national perspective.

Sheesh. Some people.

Hawkeye-X

[Zomby Woof]

136. so as Tip O'Neill said

"All politics is local". That's the problem. We have 50 state governors looking out only for their interests, the other 49 states be damned. Screw 'em! Let it be THEIR problem! :eyes:

I have lived in states where the governors CAN look beyond their borders when necessary. Call it enlightened self-interest, rather than the provincialism practiced by Dean.

I want a leader who can look beyond his own backyard and see the interconnectedness of our union and our world. Dean isn't him.

Points docked from your post for using O'Reilly as a model.

[redqueen]

137. I'm a GEEEENIUS! /sarcasm

"Reality: Dean was looking from two different perspectives, one as a governor, and the other as a presidential candidate which has NOTHING to do with spin or flip-flops, and you must understand that looking from a local perspective is different from looking from the national perspective."


You know, I live in Texas. I don't even think the waste would have come near me.

But I still knew it was a bad idea.

Wow, maybe I'm a genius! ;)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

112. it shouldn't have taken him running for president for him to figure it out

exactly. It is so disgustingly transparent I don't know how anyone can defend his pandering.

[TLM]

153. To figure out what... that nuclear waste is dangerous?

Again you bashers are happy to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that this waste MUST be dealt with, in order to attack Dean.


Don't think for a moment that Dean did not understand that movign the waste was dangerous, and that storing it elsewhere could never be 100% safe. There were two choices, and only two.

A. Keep the waste in VT at a site they knew was not up to the task, was not secure, and was dangerously close to water supplies.

B. Move the waste to another site that is secure and is a lot safer than th site in VT.


That's it. So which one was the right decision?

[redqueen]

84. Waffles aside...

What really bothers me about this Dean gaffe is how willing he is to say that the only people whose concerns he cares about are those he represents.

Is it just us 'purists' who think that the whole world is interconnected? Is it too much to expect people in different states to at least give a whit about people in their own country?

:(

How does this stack up with Dean's claims that he's now against free trade, and wants human rights / workers' rights / environmental amendments added to NAFTA?!

[TLM]

97. How very misleading and dishonest...

"What really bothers me about this Dean gaffe is how willing he is to say that the only people whose concerns he cares about are those he represents."


What is it you do not understand about the fact that a state gov's authority ends at the state line?

Let me say this again, try to understand this... I know it is complicated but try hard... Dean has no say over the site slection process in NV, nor the federal mandate to secure the waste.



"Is it just us 'purists' who think that the whole world is interconnected? Is it too much to expect people in different states to at least give a whit about people in their own country?"

Giving a whit doesn;t change the fact DEAN HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS IN NV NOR THE FEDERAL MANDATE. You dishonestly try to spin this as Dean doing something he could have somehow not done... like Dean could just select where the waste would go.



"How does this stack up with Dean's claims that he's now against free trade, and wants human rights / workers' rights / environmental amendments added to NAFTA?!"


More dishonest BS... Dean is NOT against free trade. He wants to maintain free trade, but add human rights / workers' rights / environmental standards. Why do you think the two are not able to co-exist?

[redqueen]

139. LOL!

Misleading and dishonest? WOW!

"What is it you do not understand about the fact that a state gov's authority ends at the state line?

Let me say this again, try to understand this... I know it is complicated but try hard... Dean has no say over the site slection process in NV, nor the federal mandate to secure the waste."

Can you say 'DUH'? I'm not saying he should have picked a different site! :eyes:

I'm saying he should have known, as MANY, MANY other people did, that Yucca Mountain was not suitable! Is that so hard for you to understand? I don't care what he does with his nuclear waste, because that's not the issue.

The issue is (read carefully!) - MILLIONS of people seemingly knew better than Dean did about how safe Yucca Mountain was!

He either didn't KNOW (dumb?) or didn't CARE (evil?) if it wasn't safe! He thought it was great!

:crazy:


"Giving a whit doesn;t change the fact DEAN HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS IN NV NOR THE FEDERAL MANDATE. You dishonestly try to spin this as Dean doing something he could have somehow not done... like Dean could just select where the waste would go."

You can scream the same points over and over... it won't change the fact that Dean, like Bush, didn't care that the site wasn't safe.

And it's not me 'dishonestly spinning'. It's a fact. He could have acknowledged that the site wasn't safe.

He didn't.

Stop trying to change the frame of the debate and address the fact that he thought, despite many expert opinions, that the site was safe.


"More dishonest BS... Dean is NOT against free trade. He wants to maintain free trade, but add human rights / workers' rights / environmental standards. Why do you think the two are not able to co-exist?"

Duh, again. That's called FAIR trade. To be for FAIR trade, you're automatically against FREE trade.

:eyes:

[TLM]

157. I see that is not something you care to try...

"I'm saying he should have known, as MANY, MANY other people did, that Yucca Mountain was not suitable! Is that so hard for you to understand?"


Yucca Mt is a lot safer than the site in VT. And as for the safety of the Yucca site, everything I have seen indicates that it is about as safe as you can get when dealing with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste storage can never be completely safe, so it is a bogus premise.

Supporting any waste storage site is supporting a site that can never be 100% safe because there will always be a chance of problems.

All you can do is have unsafe and less unsafe, and the fact is the Yucca site is considerably less unsafe than the VT site.


"I don't care what he does with his nuclear waste, because that's not the issue."

Funny I thought you were attacking Dean for moving waste to Yucca Mt.





"You can scream the same points over and over... it won't change the fact that Dean, like Bush, didn't care that the site wasn't safe.

And it's not me 'dishonestly spinning'. It's a fact. He could have acknowledged that the site wasn't safe.

He didn't.

Stop trying to change the frame of the debate and address the fact that he thought, despite many expert opinions, that the site was safe."


There have been experts on both sides saying it was safe and that it was not safe, hence the fact Dean says he'd want objective evaluations that wasn't spun by either side.

However as I said you are arguing a false premise, using a subjective definition of safe. The question is not if Yucca is safe, but if it is safer than the site in VT, and the answer is yes.



"Duh, again. That's called FAIR trade. To be for FAIR trade, you're automatically against FREE trade. "

LOL! No, free trade means trade FREE of tariffs and prohibitive taxation. Fair trade means, Free Trade, with environmental, labor, and safety standards attached. As long as that is not done with tariffs and taxes on goods, it is still free trade.

Saying that to be for fair trade you must be against free trade is like saying that to be for a car with seat belts you have to be against a car with good gas mileage. The two go together just fine and are parts of the same thing, they are not contradictory.

[redqueen]

175. um... ohhhhkay (?)

"Yucca Mt is a lot safer than the site in VT. And as for the safety of the Yucca site, everything I have seen indicates that it is about as safe as you can get when dealing with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste storage can never be completely safe, so it is a bogus premise."

I don't think 100% safe was the goal, though. More like... let's find stable ground. :eyes:


"Funny I thought you were attacking Dean for moving waste to Yucca Mt."

I'm not attacking him at all. I'm just trying to help others to point out that this guy is an opportunist. A pure politician. He said one thing then, says another thing now. It's pointless, I know, because his supporters just rationalize his many 'evolutions' ... but hey, if even one person can 'see the light' ( ;) ), then I guess it's worth it.


"There have been experts on both sides saying it was safe and that it was not safe, hence the fact Dean says he'd want objective evaluations that wasn't spun by either side."

Sorry, not buying it. Most environmentalists were clear on this long ago... pity that more people here didn't keep up with the topic.


"However as I said you are arguing a false premise, using a subjective definition of safe. The question is not if Yucca is safe, but if it is safer than the site in VT, and the answer is yes."

So the only criteria is whether the location is safer than VT? And by whose definition? How unsafe was the VT location?

Were you aware of the geological issues involved at the Yucca Mountain site? Did anyone who was agree with you that, despite this problem, that it was still safer than VT?


This is just too good:

" "Duh, again. That's called FAIR trade. To be for FAIR trade, you're automatically against FREE trade. " "

"LOL! No, free trade means trade FREE of tariffs and prohibitive taxation. Fair trade means, Free Trade, with environmental, labor, and safety standards attached. As long as that is not done with tariffs and taxes on goods, it is still free trade.

Saying that to be for fair trade you must be against free trade is like saying that to be for a car with seat belts you have to be against a car with good gas mileage. The two go together just fine and are parts of the same thing, they are not contradictory."


I ... I can't even begin to respond... are you a contortionist or something?

Fair trade is still free trade, only different?

Holy shamoly.

[quaker bill]

87. Dean has come to the right decision

This is by no means a simple black and white call. Extensive science has been done at Yucca Mountain.

First, there is no perfect repository for nuclear waste. This is the very good reason why I favor that we stop producing it.

Second, the locations where this material is stored now are by no means a perfect repositories. Because of this, there must, at some point, be a decision to permanently entoumb this crap somewhere.

Third, the notion that there is a science that will prove that "absolutely nothing bad will ever happen" to this waste placed at any imaginable site is simply false. There will always be risk.

There is considerable evidence that Yucca Mountain is a very low risk site to entoumb this waste. Serious scientists (not just global warming deny-ers) endorse this proposal. Other serious scientists object to the proposal. The jury remains out and the scientific consensus has certainly changed over time.

I don't blame Nevadans for objecting to this proposal. I certainly would if it were in my neighborhood. I don't believe there would ever be enough science to convince me to warmly welcome this stuff either.

All this being aside, at some point, even if we stopped producing new waste today, a decision must be made on what to do with the vast pile of this toxic crap we have already created. No matter what decision is made, it will end up somewhere where it will not be welcome.

Dean looks unflatteringly self-serving on this. But he has come to the right decision now. A bit like a portrait in miniature of certain candidates trying to have it both ways on IWR.

[Andromeda]

99. Don't expect the Dean bashers to

understand your post let alone agree with it because they never let silly things like facts stand in the way of their spin.

[Hawkeye-X]

123. Dean bashers often spin, and they haven't learned

how to stop.. YET..

Hawkeye-X

[salin]

124. Since you are all concerned about energy policy issues... how many of you

have called on your democratic senators to support a fillibuster on the Energy bill?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=738402

[sangh0]

132. I have

and thanks for that thread.

[salin]

133. thanks -

in my absence today, please help folks keep it kicked up to the top. :D Thanks!

[blm]

148. I told you it would get more attention

if it was related to the candidates and their longheld positions or "newfound" position, whichever the case may be.

;)

[E_Zapata]

126. Will he be taking Syrup with that waffle.

God......when will Deanites admit that he is just a politician...that's it. Just a politician.....not even close to being a statesman.

[TLM]

158. Since when is it waffling to say you’re open to revaluation

of a problem with no easy answers?

You seem to bash Dean as if this is a simple problem with a simple solution. SO what’s the answer? Where should the waste go?

[madfloridian]

134. How many of you have called the media about covering the Medicare bill?

Seniors at the AARP message boards, seniors all over the country are fighting back. They are dropping AARP so fast that the phone lines have long waits.

The media is only covering the side of the AARP and the GOP, who worked together on this magnificent masterpiece. They are refusing to cover the side of the seniors.

Have you written CNN or MSNBC or anyone?

Takes less effort than the anger and hatred shown here.

[SEAburb]

144. Thanks Hawkeye X for bringing this issue back from the dead

lol

[Schmendrick54]

163. What would you do, if you ran the zoo?

I have a couple of questions for everyone who thinks nuclear power plant safety is an important issue, whether they support Governor Dean or not.

1. Imagine you are the governor of Vermont in 1998 and you have nuclear waste which is being stored in your state under conditions which are reported to be unsafe. Which path do you choose?

a. Keep producing nuclear energy and storing the waste locally.

b. Stop creating more waste but do not move the existing waste.

c. Stop creating more waste and ship the existing waste to a national facility which is not perfectly safe but almost certainly safer than the current one (safer in terms of overal risk, not just to people of Vermont).

d. Something else?

Clearly all of the choices involve risks. Science can help us estimate the risks of each choice, but they are difficult to measure, and the process is fraught with bias since the benefits (profits) and risks are not shared equitably. It is a sad fact that there is often a correlation between the results of scientific studies and the financial interests of those paying for research.

For purpose of discussion, I will consider some hypothetical numbers. Suppose choice (a) is associated with an increased probability of death per year due to the stored nuclear waste of .00001 for each of 100,000 residents in the neighborhood (in Vermont). That is 10 extra deaths per decade.

Choice (b) might slightly reduce the probability of an accident or the damage caused, since less waste would be involved. On the other hand, some other energy source would be used to replace the energy which is no longer generated by the nuclear plant. This other energy source would introduce its own safety hazards. Would they be less? How can we measure this? Are the experts who evaluate the risk all closely tied to the industry in question?

Choice (c) would clearly reduce significantly the risk to people near the current facility once the plan was carried out. Suppose the risks to people near the new storage facility are subject to an increased probability of death of .00000333 for each resident (1/3rd the risk in Vermont, because of better storage design) and there are 30,000 residents affected. That means the expected number of extra deaths per decade (once the transfer is complete) is just 1 (compared with the 10 extra deaths of the first option). Even if there was not a risk during the movement of this material, this might not seem like a good choice for the people near Yucca mountain, even if it is a good choice from the larger perspective. And of course there is a risk to the people who live near the transportation routes.

Again, speaking hypothetically, it seems plausible that as part of the arrangement for storing nuclear waste in Nevada, there might be financial remuneration to Nevada in the form of taxes paid by workers, and other fees which could result in improvements in health care services (again, this is hypothetical) which might result in a fewer deaths and a better quality of life for Nevadans. As a result, the state of Nevada might end up slightly better off, even though the folks who live near Yucca Mountain do not.

If I am the Governor of Vermont, I might choose option (a) because I have studied carefully the risks and benefits to my constituents, and may have presumed that the people of Nevada would be well-represented by their own elected officials. It seems reasonable to me to presume that the Governor of Nevada (and other representatives of the state would be responsible to represent the best interests of Nevada.

If anyone is still reading, you are probably wondering if there is a point in here somewhere. As someone said (Ellen DeGeneres, I think) my point, and I do have one, is that I believe that there is only ONE candidate running for President in 2004 who has demonstrated repeatedly that when making any decision which affects the lives, health, or financial welfare of his constituents, he will make the choice that he sincerely believes will do the most to financially benefit himself and his circle of contributors, and that man is George W. Bush. I believe current and former Senators Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and Moseley-Braun, Representatives Gephardt and Kucinich, and former Governor Dean have all earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making decisions on behalf of their constituents. I only leave out General Clark and Reverend Sharpton because as far as I know neither has ever been in a position to represent constituents in elective office. But I also believe they have earned the benefit of the doubt in terms of their integrity.

If someone wants to provide detailed evidence that one of the Democratic candidates has abused their position of trust by providing some substantive documentation of enriching oneself or one's friends by their votes or official acts I would be glad to see it now rather than later. But vague statements which imply that Governor Dean favored some business (such as IBM) for personal or political reasons rather than for the good of Vermont strikes me as counter to the goals of DU. It is especially frustrating since there is clear and direct evidence of the current administration's corrupt cronyism regarding Harken, UTIMCO, Spectrum Oil, Arbusto, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc., etc., etc. Hammering on these issues during the general election will be much less effective if they are countered by Rove and CO. playing tapes next fall of Democrats implying simiilar conflicts of interest apply to our candidate (whoever s/he is).

I am proud to be a Dean supporter, but I try to be careful what I say about the other candidates because (1) I think they are good candidates and (2) I plan to be working hard for whichever one of them is nominated and I would prefer not to have to explain my own earlier comments.

To those who have recently posted criticisms of Dean regarding Yucca Mountain, or his "Cult" or the CF flag issue, to name a few, my personal reaction is to accept it as sincere criticism. I believe the posters of this criticism share with me a sincere desire to replace the Usurper in 2004, and we just disagree on the best person for the job. There are no hard feelings on my part over that, and I sincerely hope that you do not consider this long-winded message as an attack on you.

Regards,
Schmendrick (the usually-no-this-longwinded)