Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSun editorial:
‘Blah, blah, blah’
McCain’s remarks on nuclear waste storage show his contempt for Nevada
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said he would support the use of Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the dump site for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. That is one of many reasons why Nevadans should vote for Democratic opponent Barack Obama, who has said he would kill the repository plan.
At a campaign stop Sunday in Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1,300 miles away from Southern Nevada, McCain continued to show that he doesn’t care about Nevada. He did so by mocking Obama’s concerns about how to safely store spent nuclear fuel, something McCain brought up during their last debate.
“We talked about nuclear power,” McCain said. “Well, it has to be safe environment(ally), blah, blah, blah.” That dismissive response, which drew cheers and applause from Iowans at this McCain rally, showed just how out of touch McCain is with the majority of Nevadans, who steadfastly oppose the dump. If the federal government had instead planned for the dump to be in Arizona, McCain’s home state, do you think he would have taken Obama’s remarks so lightly?
McCain’s nuclear power response is symbolic of a campaign that has never embraced the deep thought and creative ideas Americans demand in this general election. Instead, McCain has resorted to shallow catchphrases, name-calling and other negative attacks to appeal to an ever dwindling base of support.
There is nothing funny or trite about nuclear waste. No one in their right mind would want to live anywhere near a radioactive dump or along any of the routes that would be used to transport the deadly material. Why should Nevadans, who are concerned about the future of this state, support a candidate who cares so little about their well-being?
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- South Point owner Michael Gaughan’s take on ‘Vegas Stripped’: ‘I’ll give it an 8’
- Coolican: Henderson officials out of loop on police brutality case, raising red flags
- See mug shots of 16 arrested in stolen-property police sting
- Lumberjacks — ‘Where the Big Boys Eat’ — hiring for North Las Vegas location
- Berkley draws stark contrasts with Heller over immigration
- Conceptual design unveiled for Henderson Space and Science Center
- Rebels open as a 9.5-point favorite against No. 13 San Diego State
- Send your loved one a virtual Vegas Valentine’s Day card right now
- Short memories may serve president
- Howard Miller, prominent lawyer and ‘true Las Vegas native,’ dies at 68
Blogs
The Kats Report
Live color from the scene at Thomas & Mack Center: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (3 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
'Blah, blah, blah'
The LV Sun editorial staff has one more time chosen to lie about Obamas ability shut down Yucca Mountain, when Barack Obama must follow the law as did Clinton and Gore when they were in office.
Barack has never said "I will kill the project". It is not on his WEBsite.
From a letter from Barack Obama printed in the RJ on October 20th of last year:
"I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository..."
I don't know how much more explicit he could be.
Future2012,
It's funny you don't cite President Bush when it comes to Chief Executives being bound by the rule of law.
In 4 years, if Yucca is alive then Nevada should retire Obama from office.
Does the Sun run a daily disclaimer that says "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."?
Once again, so many mischaracterizations from the Sun, so little time to refute them.
Here are a few of the many faulty, unproven premises relied upon by the Sun in editorials such as these:
(1) The president -- any president -- has the power and authority to arbitrarily "kill" the Yucca Mountain Project. This is simply untrue. The construction of a national nuclear waste repository is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). It is the law of the land, ratified by the legislative branch, in the same way affirmative action or the minimum wage are the law of the land. A president cannot simply overturn these laws by fiat; all a president can do is seek a legislative solution, which means convincing Congress to overturn or amend the NWPA.
(2) No one wants to live near nuclear waste. This is also manifestly untrue. If no one wanted to live near nuclear waste, there would be over a hundred areas in 39 states where no one lived because of the presence of nuclear power plants (these plants store their waste on-site). In truth, tens of thousands of people live near nuclear waste without fear or complaint; and not 90 miles away, as in the case of Las Vegans worried about Yucca Mountain, but rather a couple of miles away.
(3) McCain's pro-nuclear stance and his opinion on the safety of Yucca Mountain are a symptom of "shallow" thinking. I'm not here to defend McCain (I'm voting for the Democrat), but his "catchphrases" are backed up by years of credible scientific research, whether he cares about the specifics of this research or not. By contrast, repository opponents such as the Sun have offered ZERO credible research to back up their anti-repository arguments. McCain doesn't have to know the details on this issue to be "accidentally" right when it comes to criticizing the overinflated, uninformed claims of repository opponents. Any unbiased examination of the argument made by the State and its political representatives reveals it to be nothing more than propaganda, a pitiful attempt to fight scientific evidence with sloganeering and fear-mongering.
Ardent,
1. I suspect it could be done by EO, but I don't know that for a fact. Seems to me, however, that EOs can pretty much accomplish anything a president wants that he can't get through the congress. Not saying I agree with the practice (I don't though I understand there are times when it's necessary ... maybe), just saying it's there.
2. Disingenuous. I doubt there are very many people who willingly WANT to live near nuclear waste. Unfortunately for many, that's all they can afford.
3. "Credible scientific research"? That "research" was paid for by the nuclear industry via their lobbying arm (IINM). I'll get my science from MIT, if you don't mind. And the MIT report of a couple of years ago cites NUMEROUS problems with Yucca Mt. I don't believe the science is there at this time. It may be some day, but it isn't today.
Another part of this that's rarely mentioned is that the current design for the storage facility was for 77,000 tons. Last I heard, they wanted to at least double that AND add military-grade waste - without changing the design.
If someone wants to live near a nuclear waste site, have at it. But the people here and now in Clark County really had nothing to say about the decision of where to locate the waste site. This was something decided many years ago (during the 1980s) when Nevada had next to zero power in the Congress ... REGARDLESS of the party that was in control at the time. Every other potential site was magically removed from the list ..... except Yucca Mt. And the reason all other potential sites were removed was because Nevada's delegation pretty much had no voice - and the more powerful states with nuclear plants AND more than two/three congresscritters knew it.
And here's another faulty premise the Sun often relies upon in its anti-Yucca Mountain editorials: The idea that citizens of Nevada are "concerned about the future of this state," the implication being that Nevadans are paragons of environmentalism or socioeconomic virtue.
The Sun would have you believe that the majority of Nevadans are really and truly concerned about residents of our state 10,000 years into the future and beyond. Or, they would have you believe that Nevada residents are forward-looking enough to worry about the potential socioeconomic effects of a repository that will not start storing waste until after 2020.
What we need on this subject is some of the "straight talk" John McCain once gave us, before he became a presidential candidate.
And here it is: Nevadans in general, both politicians and polity, are not known for their environmental or economic good sense.
We are the same citizens who produced the nation's highest rate of home foreclosures.
We are the same citizens who have expanded recklessly across the Las Vegas valley, without a care for prudent management of our resources.
We are the same citizens who build artificial lakes IN A DESERT, while we complacently watch the water supply from Lake Mead (another artificial lake) dwindle to dangerously low levels.
We've been mortgaging our future and living recklessly beyond our means for years. Nevada's entire tourist economy is built on the premise of personal irresponsibility. "What Happens Here [i.e., your irresponsible behavior] Stays Here."
That is our State motto, as well as our credo. Las Vegas, Reno, etc., is where people come to act irresponsibly: to gamble money they can't afford to lose; to engage in activities they couldn't morally afford to engage in elsewhere. And you know what? That's because we ourselves, the residents of this state, "approve of this message," especially for ourselves, as we've demonstrated again and again in how we collectively manage our own affairs.
But on the subject of Yucca Mountain, suddenly everyone's a responsible environmentalist, or a concerned expert on socioeconomics. Please.
Well, I can't argue with anything you said there. But I wouldn't simply blame the Sun for this as EVERY local paper does the same thing in EVERY community they serve. To simply single out the Sun is truly disingenuous.
I would, however, like to remind you that the piece is an editorial and as such reflects the opinions of the editor.
In this case, it happens to reflect the opinions of others in addition to the editor, but these are the editor's opinions ... hence the title of "Editorial" :)
Patricia:
(1) A bit misleading and (2) something of an intellectually dishonest conflation of issues (i.e., scientific and political).
You can cite all the "outlier" studies you want (I notice you don't provide any specifics), and you can claim that the nuclear industry is "behind" all of the science produced by the Yucca Mountain Project.
The facts, however, show otherwise, as does the organizational composition of the Project. You can allude to an MIT study or studies. I can point to studies by the National Academy of Sciences, the IAEA, the national laboratories, and a host of other credible organizations. More importantly, I can point to the broad, global scientific consensus on the idea of deep geologic disposal of nuclear waste, such as that planned for Yucca Mountain.
It's the easiest thing in the world to find exceptions to this consensus: the MIT work you mention may represent a compelling example; the thoroughly refuted rising groundwater theory of a Jerry Szymanski, on the other hand, represents an obviously lacking example.
What's important is that the vast majority of scientists, engineers, and experts agree that a geologic repository such as Yucca Mountain is the safest and most responsible solution. They may quibble over details, argue over the "ideal" scenario, and so forth, but ultimately they agree on the principle.
Your point on "wanting" to live near a nuclear facility is well-taken. But that opens up the question of why people might not "want" to live near such a facility, and the extent to which they have cause for alarm relative to other dangers we live with every day. Nevertheless, the fact is that tens of thousands of people live near these facilities and have never suffered harm as a result. The founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, now supports nuclear power and has said he would be willing to live INSIDE a power plant.
Finally, defense waste has ALWAYS been included in the planning for Yucca Mountain, as set forth in the NWPA. Funding for the research has always been paid by the Nuclear Waste Fund, as appropriated by Congress and distributed by DOE, and as mandated by the NWPA (not the nuclear lobby). And the state's rights angle is well-established and well-known; it is a legitimate gripe, but it is an entirely separate issue from the scientific-regulatory case for the repository.
Patricia:
Believe me: I respect your opinions and those of the Sun. I am also well aware of the distinction between an editorial and other genres.
But I would humbly suggest, along with Tip O'Neill, that we are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
Editorials start verging into propaganda when editors do not respect the facts. Not that the Sun has disrespected the facts entirely in this particular editorials or others. But the facts are the facts. There is no disputing certain of them, and to suggest that certain facts have no "force of reality" (i.e., that laws don't exist or that scientific conclusions have not been drawn) is at best misleading and at worst a form of agitprop.
I support the repository, but I've always been willing to concede fair points, the state's rights issue foremost among them. I agree with just about everything you said on that subject, and I've always felt it is the State's strongest moral argument.
I do object, however, to the State's (and in many cases the Sun's) "kitchen sink" strategy, which often impugns credible scientific organizations and the people who work for them.
Points well-taken; however, I don't understand how my #1 response is at all misleading when there were plenty of qualifiers in there; and how exactly is my #2 "something of an intellectually dishonest conflation of issues"? You said it was "manifestly untrue" that "no one wants to live near nuclear waste". I pointed out that you might be wrong about that. What did I conflate?
I'm not being dishonest about anything. Somewhat uninformed, perhaps. But never dishonest. If I'm wrong, I will admit it and move forward with my newly gained knowledge. The studies that I've seen that are USUALLY cited by the pro-Yucca Mt. lobby are the ones that were PAID FOR by the nuclear industry. Forgive me if I place little trust in that particular area.
I'm sorry but I do NOT recall defense waste being included from the beginning. Again, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what the founder of Greenpeace says or wants. Get back to me when he becomes a scientist whose field of expertise is nuclear waste. BTW, that's precisely WHY I pay little attention to politicians of any stripe on this issue -- they aren't scientists.
Will it be safe? I'm sorry but NO ONE can know that. The best that can be offered are the results of scientific studies of SIMILAR storage facilities. And that may be enough.
But I **personally** do not feel at all comfortable living that close to a waste site, as I wouldn't feel at all comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant. And I am not alone, of that you can be assured.
The bottom line is that Obama promised to kill Yucca. He got 4 years to do it.
A Presidential Executive Order can only serve to implement a law it cannot circumvent a law.
President does not make the decision on whether the science is acceptable.
As the licensing goes forward, this allows the NRC safety review process to establish the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. Opponents, if they permit an adjudication their positions on technical facts of the program, have should have nothing to fear from a quality review process.
What Obama really said is Barack Obama's " 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."
An approved LA by the NRC will allow Obama's malleable "belief" policy statement to be updated to account for adjudication of the Yucca science.
The joke is on the anti-Yucca voters and the Naive Las Vegas Sun
Hussein, 1st Socialist President of USA, has promise to kill Yucca.
He has said, "I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain."
In four years, if Yucca is alive then Nevadans should not vote again for Hussein, 1st Socialist President of USA.
I think hell just froze over, I agree with PatriciaLV's last point:
"But I **personally** do not feel at all comfortable living that close to a waste site, as I wouldn't feel at all comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant. And I am not alone, of that you can be assured."
I lived in Crystal River, FL, which has a nuclear power plant, for a couple of years and I have to admit I was a bit nervous at times.
As far as Yucca goes, if it becomes operational then I will be moving. And I don't really care how many scientific studies say it's safe. Heck, researchers will say in one year, coffee is good for me, the next year the will say it's bad.
Hate to waste the bandwidth but .....
car_1: LMAO!
Studies and solid science have nothing to do with this discussion when it comes to what Obama says he believes. Yucca Mountain is a touchstone issue here, so he says what he thinks will help win him every possible vote.
He has done this before, specifically during the primarys when he was so vocal about NAFTA while at the same time his agents were in Canada telling members of the Canadian governement not Obama did not really feel that way. And guess what, about a month later we hear Obama back away from his NAFTA statements, but they had served their purpose.
Do we have ANY reason to think his statements about Yucca are any different? He is either being less than honest about Yucca, or is mis-leading us on how nuclear power must be a factor to help get us off our dependence upon oil.
This is nothing but Chicago politics. I appreciate McCain at least being honest about his position on Yucca.
Las Vegas' economy will be a dumpsite on its own by 2010...we'll be glad to have Yucca jobs!
"A Presidential Executive Order can only serve to implement a law it cannot circumvent a law."
Not true because that law that it might implement could very well circumvent and in fact override completely another law.
"President does not make the decision on whether the science is acceptable."
And yet Bush did just that.
"The joke is on the anti-Yucca voters and the Naive Las Vegas Sun"
No, the "joke" is on all of us who live 90 miles downwind of the storage facility. I assume that includes you. And my how incredibly funny that is.
I just found this story through www.reddit.com and felt a need to comment.
I worry about global climate change, peak-oil and keeping the lights on, even when the wind isn't blowing.
If you still fear nuclear power plants you really need to read this book and watch the info. video on the authers web page.
(The first book below).
Western Nuclear Power Plants are clean(no air pollution, that kills people), safe, and low cost electrical power!
They can't blow up or melt down! Get the facts for yourself.
We need to stop burning fossil fuel for our energy use NOW, or we will be screwed!
If you are looking for a place to build more nuclear power plants, please feel free to use my back yard!
How are we going to rechange the coming plug-in cars and make hydrogen, and not make climate change worse?
Here are some book and links to get informed;
'Power to Save the World: The truth about nuclear energy and our changing climate.'
By: Gwyneth Cravens
http://www.cravenspowertosavetheworld.co...
(There is a link to info. video about the book)
'Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy.'
By: William Sweet. Columbia University Press: 2006.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?in...
'The Weather Makers : How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth.'
By: Tim Flannery
(Tim also thinks we need more nuclear power plants to stop changing the climate in time to stop passing a tipping point, or it's going to get very BRUTAL!)
http://www.theweathermakers.org/
Here is a plug for Canada's Nuclear Power, and info.
Atomic Energy Canada Limited.
(They make the CANDU reactors. The last few CANDU 6 power plants have been built on time, about 4 years, and on budget! They also have an ACR-1000 for sale.)
http://www.aecl.ca/
Canadian Nuclear Association
http://www.cna.ca/
(Lots of good info.)
So you still don't belive in man made climate change? You don't need to, to still think doing something is a better choise than doing nothing.
See,
'How It All Ends' 10min,
to learn about climate change issue.
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmin...
This is a must see show!
The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=...
What do you know about Peak-Oil?
Have you seen this movie yet?
'Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash.' 2006
http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
(the extra stuff on the DVD is also interesting.)
I think if you do a web search you can watch it for free.
FYI, in 2007 the world used 1 cubic mile of oil!
Do you think it is really going to last forever?
Just my two cents.
"They can't blow up or melt down!"
I'm glad you punctuated that with an exclamation point, but I'm pretty sure the former residents of Chernobyl might disagree with that.
Oh and there was also Indian Point here in the U.S.
This is not to say that nuclear power hasn't become quite a bit safer than it was (apparently) back during those two events.
But to state as if fact as you did borders on blatant dishonesty. (If you are a representative of the nuclear industry, it IS blatant dishonesty.)
CORRECTION: Three Mile Island.
My bad.
"In four years, if Yucca is alive then Nevadans should not vote again for Hussein, 1st Socialist President of USA."
Oh jfnance... really more of this? Can I ask, is your insistence on calling him Hussein because you believe it to be a slur against him? I would think, since most people know him as Barack Obama, you would use one of those names to get your point across more clearly.
Also, I would ask, are you making these statements for your own self-satisfaction in calling him a socialist, or do you genuinely think that it is constructive or convincing?
As much as you randomly interject this kind of garbage, I am really just trying to understand what you think you are actually accomplishing.
But yes, another very good point you've made.
Please. Yucca mountain is hardly a reason to vote for or against anybody.
Since 1988 and H. Reid chose to run a campaign against it, the project has become the monster under the bed for adults.
The project couldn't possibly affect the lives of people here as negatively as a couple of liberal supreme court nominations could.
We know McCain is "for" Yucca Mountain as a dump site--although he admits he would not like to see the waste come through Phoenix. It is okay to come through Nevada. And he is so irrelevant of this concern it is "blah, blah, blah to him. This we know.
This is about representation and leadership. Obama has spoken against Yucca Mountain. Addressing the concerns of Nevadans with respect says more in Obama's favor than McCain's "blah, blah, blah". But, then McCain is the same candidate that addressed the crowd as "My fellow prisoners..." That certainly should make us feel warm and cozy about the lock down of our future, too. Sheesh.
A lot to comment on, so here's my two cents worth:
1. Defense waste has been part of the disposal requirement from the beginning. See the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. For the 70,000 metric ton limit for a Yucca repository set by the NWPA, agreements between the Defense Department and the Department of Energy, 7,000 tons will be from DOE-managed high-level radioactive waste, some of which was from defense activities.
2. I suppose the question of whether a president can "cancel" the Yucca repository program can be addressed by "the lawyers" either at the White House or DOE. Yes, the Joint Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law in 2002 does set the course for Yucca, but (in my opinion) the next step in the NWPA process is for the NRC to act upon the Yucca license application submitted by DOE in June. It would seem that there has to be considerable burden of proof for a president to withdraw the license application. Surely, the NRC has the legal and technical responsibility and resources to judge the safety of the facility for its various stages of operation and a new president does not.
With the myriad of energy and other issues that await the next president, it would seem that Yucca can be "handled" initially by letting the NRC license process "run its course" rather than lurching into a Plan B.