Debate -- McCain calls Nuclear Safety Advocates "Extreme Environmentalists"

During the debate this evening, it's been pointed out, correctly, that John McCain mocked Barack Obama when Obama spoke about his concern for the "life of the mother" when it comes to abortion laws.

But he made another gaffe (not as bad as when he called Obama "Senator Government"), one which got me thinking and worried me greatly.

McCain accused Obama of taking the position of "extreme environmentalists" because Obama wants to be sure that storing and disposing of used fuel rods from nuclear power plants is done safely.

In fact, in Nevada, which borders McCain's home state of Arizona, there has been a decades-long battle to not allow the disposal of those nuclear rods in that state. With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) among those "extreme environmentalists," then count me in, too.

What would a President McCain do when it comes to his Secretary of Transportation and the chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)? Who would lead them?

Would "extremists" who have dedicated their lives to automotive safety issues be excluded from a McCain administration? Would those with a concern for safety, higher-mileage goals and lowered emissions be considered too "extremist" for a McCain/Palin-led government?

Also just as important is McCain's vision for the Environmental Protection Agency, which was organized beginning in 1970 by President Nixon. The EPA sets the rules when it comes to automotive and truck miles-per-gallon and emissions issues.

Would "extremists" not be hired by these agencies or given positions of importance? There seem to be two McCain "litmus tests" we found out about tonight - A person who thinks the disposal and storage of nuclear fuel rods must be done safely, and those who have a concern for the life of the mother in abortion procedures, would not fit into a McCain/Palin administration.

If John McCain can mock the "life of the woman" and calls those who want safe disposal and storage of spent nuclear fuel "extreme environmentalists," then how could he be trusted with our safety on the roads, the quality of our air and water and the future of our national automotive industry? The short answer: He can't.

Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Hofstra Presidential Debate from HuffPost bloggers

Follow Steve Parker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/autojourno

Comments

[research]

from above....

Doctors rightfully view the use of radiation imaging detection and treatment of diseases as incredibly useful, lifesaving technology. Doctors do not want you to fear radiation. Doctors don't want unwarranted fear of radiation to cause the loss of such powerful tools for medicine.

So let's keep the medicinal uses of nuclear technology. Let's keep the needed research reactor, and build new ones as needed. But let's no fools ourselves: It's a two edge sword. We do not want large scale nuclear power. We have already realized the futility of 70,000 warheads and cut back to less than 10,000.

The first generation Nuclear power plants need fresh refined uranium: already scarce enough that we would destroy the grand canyon to get more.

Second generation nuclear power plants are based on converting more common metals into useful fuel in a breeder reactor. We have been burning up decommissioned weapons material in The Russian experimental breeder reactor for few years. This process REQUIRES extensive state of the art plutonium extraction facilities, perfect for weapons nuke refinement. Building up the worlds breeder reactor program guarantees more mushroom clouds.

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/14-2.pdf
See what MIT thinks about nukes.
"Insurmountable Risks"

[DrYRHead]

This from someone that does NOT want nuclear waste transported through, or stored in, his state of AZ. What a hypocrite.

[whsmith]

McCain mocking the notion of "health and safety". Just toss that spent nuclear fuel anywhere, my friends.

[Manjoe]

Excellent observation. I think your concern here is warranted. We have learned from the Bush administration that inflamatory political rhetoric is the birthplace of political ideology and political ideology trumps rational deliberation and decision making every time. It becomes a vicious cycle that takes the whole political process down. Your suggestion about how McCain's rhetoric might shape his cabinet is prophetic.
I am hoping that in the remaining 2 plus weeks the rhetoric on both sides can become a bit more rational and less exaggerated. We are fast approaching the moment when all the election hoopla will be over and we will have to really start to come up with new plans and strategies for solving real problems. Given Obama's lead right maybe he can lead us in that rhetorical shift.

[LeftRight]

So does that make me an extreme socialist because I feel that taxes should be at least the same percentage for the rich and the middle class?

[Gidster]

No that makes you a Republican. Why should the people that reap the most wealth from this country re-invest the most?

When 1% of this country's population holds 90% of its wealth there is a systemic problem.

Are the lower 99% lazier, less educated or less motivated?

I don't think so.

[alvdh1]

Please read Dr. John W. Gofman's book Poisoned Power. Gofman is the father of the anti nuclear movement in the USA. The book can be read online. Before you read his book, read his curricculum vitae so that you have no doubt about his credentials. He dicovered to isotopes of uranium and co-discovered 8 transuranium elements. He invented two processes for separating plutonium from spent fuel as a graduate student on the Manahatten Project.

[DrYRHead]

Bush Jr has repeated the failed policy of supply-side economics. That policy Bush Sr had a disdain for, and he called it voodoo economics. However, Bush Jr took the FAILED concept of trickle down economics to a new high. He gave the rich HUGE tax breaks, and they intern invested most of it overseas. Under Reagan the same types invested in a proliferation of fast food restaurants, and that created jobs alright. However, the most of those jobs were low paying no or low benefit jobs. This time around the jobs have been out-sourced to Asia instead.

From the Reagan to Bush Jr administrations the average Americans' buying power has dropped very low too. Less people can save money, and very few now have truly disposable income.

That is what happens when the middle and lower classes pay increased only 50%, yet the prices on things increased by 300 to 400% over that same time.

[research]

industrialization and capitalism have built in exponential imbalances that, without progressive, redistributive , taxes makes the rich richer and poor poorer, faster and faster. It happen before the depression the same way. Taxes on top income got lower to 25% in 1925 leading to market bubbles and crashes.

think of it this way: 10 times the average income has WAY MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE POWER TO MAKE MORE MONEY.