If you don't watch the debates on CNN, you are really missing something. CNN has set up a dial group of uncommitted Ohio voters. At the bottom of the screen CNN then shows the graph of the reaction by men and women as they rate statements they like or don't like.
McCain seems to think his strong support of nuclear power is a big political winner for him, since he has brought it up three times in the first hour. But every time he talks about nuclear, he flatlines with both men and women. They simply are unenthused about nuclear power, which is no surprise.
At best, people consider nuclear power as Castor oil, something your parents made you take that is supposed to be good for you. At worst, people think it's a source of radioactivity they'd like to stay far away from.
Frankly, McCain has been flatlining for most of the debate, which I suspect post-debate audience polls will reflect.
Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Town Hall Debate from HuffPost bloggers
WTF??? That statement - by a presidential candidate - dismissing a serious concern shows a Homer Simpson level of understanding of nuclear power. This is literally radioactive material. The safety of its handling must be fully understood BEFORE it is handled. Why? Because the radioactive waste will be around longer than people have been on this earth. So we're not only creating dangerous materials that our children and grandchildren will need to handle safely, but that generations thousands of years from now will need to safely handle.
McCain focuses on the safety of using nuclear power. The problem is the storage: we have no guarantee that the safety precautions we create can be held in place for the thousands of years necessary for the radioactive waste to lose its radioactivity.
I would feel confident to serve on a nuclear-powered ship for several months/years, but I would never want to live near Yucca Mountain or any other place where the waste will be stored for thousands of years.
And I would never vote for a man that would dismiss someone else's stance on such a serious issue with "safe or disposable or something like that".
Other countries are encountering huge problems in dealing with their nuclear waste including France that gets touted as a positive example.
We need energy independence that does not put us on the path to self destruct.
Fortunately we are about to have President Obama and a democratic congress so I won't worry too much about this.
Isn't the owner of Davis Besse, First Energy, a major campaign contributor to the Regug party?
Another good example would be Three Mile Island, which is the same design and built by the same company.
Nuclear is not the answer, we don't have the time or the money to build those plants. They're expensive and take ten years to erect. We don't have the money to maintain them. We didn't have it when the economy was good....what makes anyone think states have it now?
Nuclear energy is so 70s-80s, like the Cold War and missile shields.
FREE!?
The large number of nuclear plants shut down across the USA weren't closed because of a sudden epiphany on the part of their operators -- they were shut down because they were simply TOO EXPENSIVE to operate!
I mean, trying to link Obama to the 60s radical group the Weathermen? It looks like shoving offshore drilling and nuclear power down America's throat is his way of getting back at all the youth who partied at Woodstock while he was in a Viet Namese prison camp.
At this point, McCain has just ran out of ideas. He looked old and sometimes rambled tonight, and often he was rambling while discussing his favorite subject, foreign policy.
Obama just looks more presidential everytime we see him. Even the Republican pundits on CNN admitted that. We need a president who will promote alternative energy sources, and the American people, with all of the traditional energy sources becoming too expersive, are finally ready to accept that fact.
One example is geothermal. The earth is a thin layer of crust over a permanent molten core. You don't really have to go too deep to get to reach enough of a heat exchange to boil water . We drill miles deep for oil and a lot of it comes up very hot. Same technology. All we need to do is boil water to have an endless nearly-free source of electricity.
Solar is another example. Photo-voltaic panels are expensive but simple curved mirrors focusing infrared radiation on fluid piping is another easy way to boil water to spin a steam turbine.
I think McCain brought this up before ? last debate. And I wondered then if scientists had addressed the waste issue based on his extreme positive view on the whole issue. Based on other's posts this does not appear to be the case. I think waste disposal would be a huge issue if more plants are built.
I remember reading a Village Voice article about some of the issues with disposal. Number one being, it takes 10,000 years for the stuff to decompose - and there has never been a government, country, or even a language that's lasted that long. Recorded history doesn't go back that far! There's little chance that it will be contained. At some point, it's going to get loose.