McCain does it again. More lies, deception and half truths when speaking on nuclear energy.

[nc4bo]

*I apologize for the long length of this post in advance*


In his speech a couple days ago, while speaking of nuclear energy, Sen. Mccain again tries to compare the record of Naval vessels stellar safety record to the safety record of nuclear power plants..

Here's a typical example from a previous stump speech:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/05/mccain_touts_expanded_nuclear.html

As he continues to focus on energy and gas prices, McCain has criticized Democrat Barack Obama for failing to be a strong advocate of nuclear power. In the process, McCain touts the safety record of the power plants.

"My friends, the United States Navy has sailed ships around the world for more than 50 years with nuclear power plants on them and we've never had a single accident," McCain said last month at a town hall in Louisiana.

Apples and oranges people. The system is deregulated and broken and Mccain has no idea how to fix it EXCEPT perhaps more of the same.

Sen. Mccain says he's an advocate of reducing earmarks and pork barrel spending. President Bush did too but Bush referred to it as "wasteful spending" and "discretionary spending (unless it's related to defense)" along with all too familiar "pork barrel spending". During the Bush regime, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department, the Social Security Administration, the Interior Department, the Department of Education, Department of Energy even Homeland Security all had part or all of their budgets cut and funding limited.

One example, Bush increased spending for his Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power Programs but slashes the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/bush_budget_cuts_environment.php).

What will Sen. Mccain do to protect us and our environment if the very agency in charge of overseeing this protection and clean-ups is starved for funding? Slash their budgets even more or privatize?

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-08-10.asp
http://murray.senate.gov/hanfordcleanup/hanford-work.cfm
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1014-24.htm

Yet a quick look at the president's FY 2009 budget proposals for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency programs show cuts in critical areas, including climate protection, tribal energy, and solar energy, while funding for fossil and nuclear energy was increased. And some programs, such as Weatherization Assistance Grants, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, were zeroed out entirely.

And while it may be true that the Navy does have a good nuclear safety record, it is still not 100% perfect or foolproof and it certainly can not be compared to the size and scale of the 45 full size nuclear power plants that Sen. Mccain wants to build.

U.S. Naval Nuclear accidents:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3782966&mesg_id=3782966
and a recent one from 8/08: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3782966&mesg_id=3782987


I'd like to ask Sen. Mccain first and foremost, where would we store all this spent nuclear waste or contaminated materials from the deconstruction of these older nuclear power plants? Will it go something like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310094352.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-hanford13-2008aug13,0,478449.story?page=1

Welcome to the Hanford Reach, where one of the last free-flowing stretches of the Columbia River encounters America's most contaminated nuclear site. Along this flat, mostly treeless scrubland, the U.S. government built nine reactors between 1943 and 1963, including the historic "B" plant that produced the world's first weapons-grade plutonium for the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II.

The reactors have leaked so much radioactivity into the air, land and water that the contamination caused by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident seems trivial by comparison. Yet merchants and tourism directors here in southern Washington state see the river and the shuttered reactors as a growing tourist draw.

-snip-

The task of cleaning up the mess has been daunting, involving the removal of millions of gallons of contaminated ground water, hundreds of tanks of liquid radioactive waste and thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel. Even the tumbleweeds that blow across the site are scanned for radiation before being carted away for disposal.

Department of Energy officials say they don't know how long the cleanup work will take because they still don't know the extent of the contamination. The agency has built a massive landfill at the Hanford site to hold up to 10 million tons of contaminated materials. The still-radioactive cores of the reactors will be entombed in 4-foot-thick walls of concrete and steel for a minimum of 75 years. All the nuclear facilities except the B reactor will be off-limits to the public while the soil cleanup continues.

Sen. Mccain goes on and on about the benefits of nuclear energy but leaves out one of the more important details. How would we protect addition nuclear power plants from terrorism? How will he ensure safe transport of nuclear material on our roads and waterways? How are we going address updating and repair of the structures of our current aging power plants?

From an 2002 article: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1130-02.htm:

Published on Saturday, November 30, 2002 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Nuclear Plant Fiascoes Likely with Age, Secret Study Suggests
by Stephen Koff

WASHINGTON -- Equipment breakdowns at nuclear power plants are not unusual.

Pipes crack, break or clog, springing leaks with some regularity. Pumps stall or freeze up. Steam generator tubes burst. Steel components can get brittle from being bombarded with radioactivity. Nuclear-industry officials acknowledge as much.

David Lochbaum
nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists
But the problem is getting worse as the nation's inventory of nuclear reactors gets older. In addition, the nuclear-power industry is facing increasing competition as the result of deregulation, making it more reluctant to seek out problems that would require the tremendous expense of repair shutdowns. At the same time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is facing budget squeezes that make it more difficult to monitor the industry.

The result is growing concern about expensive, potentially dangerous nuclear-plant failures.

"Given plant aging and materials issues," cracks and leaks like those that led to the Davis-Besse fiasco, where leaking boric acid ate a hole in the reactor lid, are likely to recur, says a confidential analysis by the influential Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

Similarly, a research report compiled last year by engineers at several laboratories affiliated with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned that "the number of occurrences of age-related degradation has been increasing as nuclear power plants age."

One of many questions for Sen. Mccain would be, what does he intend to do about the aging of our nuclear facilities?

I'd like the opportunity to ask him about his conservation plan. Does he even have one? He's very comfortable throwing around the term green energy but exactly how does he propose to shift America from fossil fuels into green energy? How can we reduce our consumption for energy nationally? (Come to think of it, I'd also like to ask him why he hasn't once mentioned the importance of raising the MPG requirements for all vehicles manufactured and imported into the United States? Not one time has he mentioned raising fuel efficiency requirements for automobiles, not once.)

Back on the nuclear topic;

Who will oversee the NRC from bureaucratic bs, cronyism and mismanagement?:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=289988 (Hillary Clinton battles pass the buck syndrome, NRC-style): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0927-20.htm

(What does the NRC do again?)
http://wcbstv.com/video/?id=[e-mail] (sleeping guards and NRC)
http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/hl-070928-peachbottom.html

I'd like to ask every human being attending thr RNC and also every single human being cheering like screaming banshees at those Mccain rally's one simple question:

When given ALL of the facts and figures, not just the abbreviated sketchy ones that Sen. Mccain spoonfeeds you; Would YOU and your family be comfortable having a nuclear power plant built or a spent nuclear waste facility in your neighborhood or would the majority of answers be; Not In My Back Yard?

And finally, Sen. Obama does not oppose building new nuclear power plants, he wants to use nuclear power safely and responsibly - another fact that Sen. Mccain continues to distort, neglect and fail to address himself.:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-
carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear
without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and
waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S.
Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear
power plants.

To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama
worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R ­ IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and
stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make
safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority.
Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on
objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that
the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage
technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

They'll (Mccain/repukes) undoubtedly rehash that Obama did not know about the Hanford site but at least Obama DOES definitely addressed the under his Energy Plan (link already listed in this post) but that's ok because at least Obama addresses it, Mccain's does not.

I want our country to avoid any more of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

I want you (anyone) to know that I am not anti-nuclear. It's definitely an option but it should be with extreme caution and responsibility. What I am against is going forward with the nuclear option without the proper protections in place.

A Mccain Administration makes no such promise and it's obvious that it's not even of great importance to anyone in their campaign.

You may agree or disagree with this post, that's ok - just say what's on your mind and let's talk about it. We DO need to talk about it.

Now is not the time for a maverick, much less 2 of them.