How was that a non-clean ad? Seemed like he was telling people the truth. McCain is for dumping the waste there.

Isn't Yucca Mountain designed to mitigate the risk of storing nuclear waste? Doesn't this then imply that Obama is against nuclear energy?

Negative ads comparing your opponent to religious figures and celebrities != negative ads over political issues.

I hope our next president is willing to ship the waste there. The only barrier is political.

Ummm...not a dirty campaign ad at all. Not particularly relevant, doesn't say what his idea is if we don't use Yucca, or how safe the waste would be at Yucca...but not dirty politics, he is just playin on local fears.

So Mr. Obama, what are your plans for permanent storage of nuclear waste?

I live 5 miles from the largest temporary spent reactor fuel storage site in the country and the only storage site in the country that imports waste from other power plants, so this question is important to me.

Wow, a policy attack in a presidential campaign. Obama sure is a negative, cynical monster.

Obama's commercials say stuff like McCain wants to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

McCain's commercials stay stuff like Obama's a celebrity who wants to raise taxes on "us," that he's arrogant and presumptuous, and that his energy policy consists entirely of inflating your tires.

I'm just so ANGRY at Obama right now!

it's all true. and it's about policy. you'll get over it.

Whence coms't thou, nuclear waste? No matter-- Barack Obama drinks your liquid nuclear waste! He drinks it up!

m0llusk: Whence coms't thou, nuclear waste? No matter-- Barack Obama drinks your liquid nuclear waste! He drinks it up!

Were you going for a Shakespearean thing, or a There Will Be Blood thing? Because you're themes are clashing.

So its OK when McBush goes negative, but bad when Obama goes negative? Got it, Freepmitter. No bias here at all. Hell, that wasn't even negative, just truthful. But I guess that's a negative ad to Freepmitter.

Nobody WANTS nuclear waste to be going through their neighborhoods. I'd be surprised, however, if the deliverers of the nuclear waste ended up going through, I don't know, Las Vegas.

I'm guessing they are going to take the least-populated routes possible.

The nuclear waste has to go somewhere if we are going to use nuclear power. Out in the middle of the Nevada desert sounds like a good place to me.

big_pth: How was that a non-clean ad? Seemed like he was telling people the truth. McCain is for dumping the waste there.

They also claimed he was against it, which seems an obvious distortion from the context of the question and answer shown; he's against trucking the waste through big cities, to which I say "DURR!"

johnny_vegas: Not particularly relevant, doesn't say what his idea is if we don't use Yucca, or how safe the waste would be at Yucca

This.

burndtdan: it's all true. and it's about policy. you'll get over it.

It's got one distortion, as I noted. However, yes, and yes, but I'm disappointed Obama's starting to play to fear instead of hope.

It's also stupid energy policy. We need reactors; so, we need to figure out what to do with the spent fuel. Yucca was the best solution I've heard proposed for protection against accidental release of high level fuel rod waste.

If anyone has a better idea, I'm listening.

KaponoFor3: The nuclear waste has to go somewhere if we are going to use nuclear power. Out in the middle of the Nevada desert sounds like a good place to me.

I've never supported nuclear power because of the waste. I don't like forms of energy that have waste that is toxic for hundreds of years.

Because storing it in Yucca Mountain is LESS SAFE than having it scattered around the country, sitting in storage tanks near major rivers.

\Stupid
\\Not a nuclear supporter
\\\Not afraid of the radiation boogeyman

It's sort of an attack ad, I suppose, but it's accurate and it's about issues, not bullshiat "celebrity" or "elitism" crap.

Of course, it doesn't tell me shiat about what Obama's ideas on the matter are, and as far as I know, he's never said. Or did I miss something?

KaponoFor3: I'm guessing they are going to take the least-populated routes possible.

Most of it will be going via rail. So basically no.

abb3w: It's also stupid energy policy. We need reactors; so, we need to figure out what to do with the spent fuel. Yucca was the best solution I've heard proposed for protection against accidental release of high level fuel rod waste.

I disagree that we need reactors, but we've already got tons and tons of nuclear waste that needs stored. The best place for this is in the desert of Nevada or Utah.

If you don't like it, don't live in Nevada.

Lionel Mandrake: Of course, it doesn't tell me shiat about what Obama's ideas on the matter are, and as far as I know, he's never said. Or did I miss something?

Well, it says he opposes opening Yucca mountain, which is a pretty stupid idea, in my opinion.

abb3w: It's got one distortion, as I noted. However, yes, and yes, but I'm disappointed Obama's starting to play to fear instead of hope.

I agree, but it is a rather targeted ad playing on a major issue for a small state. It's not like the nationwide "celebrity" BS we've seen.

But I hope he keeps the negative ads few and limited. I'd hate for this to be the beginning of a "slippery slope" into the pit of negative ads.

GAT_00: I've never supported nuclear power because of the waste. I don't like forms of energy that have waste that is toxic for hundreds of years.

Coal ash is radioactive enough IIR that if it came from a nuclear plant, it would need to be treated as mid-level waste. Coal-fired plants make up half the US electrical grid, compared to about one-fifth the grid for nuke plants. Additionally, the isoptopes involved in coal ash are dangerous to the megayear range; fuel rods go back to the hazard level of the original unprocessed ore in only about 50000 years. (It would be less if we reprocessed to separate out the U-Pu from the rest for re-use, but that would lead to risks of terrorist diversion.)

Additionally, reactor waste stays in the rods and reactor, and doesn't go out the stack.

KaponoFor3: Nobody WANTS nuclear waste to be going through their neighborhoods.

McCain sure doesn't.

I suspect that he is about to propose some sort of magic fairies-based transportation system for nuclear waste.

abb3w: Coal ash is radioactive enough IIR that if it came from a nuclear plant, it would need to be treated as mid-level waste.



Additionally, the isoptopes involved in coal ash are dangerous to the megayear range;

co-conspirator: McCain sure doesn't.

Um, yeah, that's no surprise. Like I said, nobody WANTS it to go through their area on the freak chance that there is an accident.

That being said, it has to go somewhere if we really want nuclear power. Nevada is a great place.

The Icelander: I disagree that we need reactors

How do you propose we replace the 20% of our current electical supply? (Including 15% for Vegas....)

Admittedly, the people of Nevada got screwed in '87 when the alternative site studies were killed. On the other hand, the alternatives did not look (to my eye) particularly promising. On the gripping hand, it might have cut some of the NIMBY factor.

abb3w: The Icelander: I disagree that we need reactors

How do you propose we replace the 20% of our current electical supply? (Including 15% for Vegas....)

as much as i hate him, t. boone pickens has a plan to use wind for, if i remember correctly, 22% or so.

simply to say, there are alternatives. a lot of the nuclear supporters have blinders on about the true possibilities.

Obama is criticized for not being aggressive enough in the campaign.

Obama is criticized for supposedly going negative in the campaign.

The guy just can't win.

Other than wind and solar power, all forms of electrical generation are just more creative ways to boil water. Find a way to boil a cup of tea with no environmental impact and for the cheap and you are a winner. Otherwise, it's all about the lesser of many evils.

/fully supports nuclear power
//CANDO can doo-doo
///but Sartre is dead.

abb3w: How do you propose we replace the 20% of our current electical supply? (Including 15% for Vegas....)

The US is unique among most countries in that it has a huge variety of renewable energy sources. There's hydroelectric in the northwest, solar in the southwest, wind everywhere from the plains to the appalachians to offshore, tidal power, and even river power using things that are similar to wind turbines.

Nuclear is great, and definitely has its place. Remote areas with high power needs, aircraft carriers and submarines, and even lunar and Mars missions are great applications for nuclear power.

I'm not afraid of it, I just think we shouldn't use it unless we have to. But it's definitely preferable to coal, oil, or natural gas power.

\Save natural gas for cooking
\\You'll take my stove when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Tr0mBoNe: Other than wind and solar power, all forms of electrical generation are just more creative ways to boil water.

Tidal and wave power don't boil water. And hydroelectric doesn't use boiling, though it does use evaporation. Plus, some solar power plants boil water.

HansensDisease: abb3w: Coal ash is radioactive enough IIR that if it came from a nuclear plant, it would need to be treated as mid-level waste.

Additionally, the isoptopes involved in coal ash are dangerous to the megayear range;

Sure, here ya go: Coal Combustion (new window)

FTL: At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are distributed in millions of pounds of stack emissions each year. They include: aluminium, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, copper, fluorine, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, sulfur, titanium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc.

Bold are toxic or radioactive, AFAIK.

Coal is dirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrty. It is the highest contributor of CO2 from man made sources.

Seems like an ad calling McCain on his own hypocrisy here.

No in Arizona. Yes in other states. That is the perceived attack. Calling a man on his own record, as opposed to calling a man too popular...

The Icelander: Tr0mBoNe: Other than wind and solar power, all forms of electrical generation are just more creative ways to boil water.

Tidal and wave power don't boil water. And hydroelectric doesn't use boiling, though it does use evaporation. Plus, some solar power plants boil water.

Taking it back a step, other than Solar power, all our electricity is generated through mechanical means. It would be a whole lot simpler if we could just convert heat directly into electricity. (new window)

Photovoltaics (solar power) is a similar concept but isn't very efficient... Donne moi le's superconductors!

Nuclear power is the greatest idea in the history of time. Well, except for maybe beer.

It is just awesome. As an EE, it drives me nuts that it's not a more popular.

Toxic waste is not a big deal. You put it in a heavy duty box, you put it in a large hole in the ground. Then nothing happens. Nothing. For pete's sake.

Not a negative ad.

And why not just dump all this stuff in the Grand Canyon? It's just a big hole in the ground and nobody ever goes there.

Tr0mBoNe: Isn't Yucca Mountain designed to mitigate the risk of storing nuclear waste? Doesn't this then imply that Obama is against nuclear energy?

He would agree to nuclear power if it's absolutely, completely, and utterly safe from all possible dangers.

_{/unlike every other fuel out there. Clean coal? Please.}

abb3w: How do you propose we replace the 20% of our current electical supply? (Including 15% for Vegas....)

Negawatts.

It's one solution sitting under everyone's nose that no one seems to consider.

Utilities in the PNW have been buying capacity from end users for years now. It is way, WAY cheaper than buying new capacity of any stripe.

Everyone seems to start into this conversation with the assumption that we are using our current power resources at or near maximal efficiency. That is not true, by any stretch of the imagination.

Huge opportunites exist for buying power capacity back from end users.

Boo-hoo!

Negative ads are only bad when THEY do it!

Come on.

John Mc"Respectful Campaign"Same blew his shot at an issues fight with his whole celebrity ad campaign and Obama is fighting back.

Booya-Obama '08

Tr0mBoNe: Isn't Yucca Mountain designed to mitigate the risk of storing nuclear waste? Doesn't this then imply that Obama is against nuclear energy?

It obviously implies that Obama is an evil secret mooslim terrorist/dirty librul/black person. Don't you watch Fox news?

Didn't somebody claim they'd discovered a radiation "eating" fungus on the area around Chernobyl a few years ago? That ever go anywhere? That would really calm fears about nuclear power, not to mention helping with nuclear disarmament worldwide.

Did it get debunked or something? I haven't seen a thing since.

Bloody William: Wow, a policy attack in a presidential campaign. Obama sure is a negative, cynical monster.

And a celebutante, lest we forget.

Listing the facts is not a dirty ad. Lying about Obama's tax plan IS a dirty ad. Got that SUBMITTARD?

Falcc: Didn't somebody claim they'd discovered a radiation "eating" fungus on the area around Chernobyl a few years ago? That ever go anywhere? That would really calm fears about nuclear power, not to mention helping with nuclear disarmament worldwide.

Did it get debunked or something? I haven't seen a thing since.

That seems to be a hoax based on a pretty basic misunderstanding of nuclear physics.

Biological processes are chemical in nature. All such a fungus could do would be to use the radioactive elements in its metabolic processes--The elements would remain radioactive, since the chemical processes involved in biological metabolism only affect the electrons surrounding the nucleus of the atoms of the compounds involved and do not affect the nucleus at all. The nucleus isthe source of the radioactivity.

I am not sure what the advantage would be of a radioactive fungus, since fungi exist for most of their life cylce as diffuse mycelium, so the radioactivity would not be usefully concentrated or anything.

Tr0mBoNe: Isn't Yucca Mountain designed to mitigate the risk of storing nuclear waste? Doesn't this then imply that Obama is against nuclear energy?

And hauling it through major cities?

It would be nice to know what Obama does support regarding dealing with nuclear waste.

GAT_00:
I've never supported nuclear power because of the waste. I don't like forms of energy that have waste that is toxic for hundreds of years.

Yeah because those non-toxic ones which simply release their "harmless" gasses into the atmosphere have worked out so well for us so far.

GAT_00: KaponoFor3: The nuclear waste has to go somewhere if we are going to use nuclear power. Out in the middle of the Nevada desert sounds like a good place to me.

I've never supported nuclear power because of the waste. I don't like forms of energy that have waste that is toxic for hundreds of years.

Would you prefer we use unicorn farts? I happen to have a few tanks of them here myself.

It's nice that Obama is willing to engage McCain on the issues and not with weasel words like "elitist." It's sad that he's discounting a viable way of storing nuclear waste.

kleppe: GAT_00: KaponoFor3: The nuclear waste has to go somewhere if we are going to use nuclear power. Out in the middle of the Nevada desert sounds like a good place to me.

I've never supported nuclear power because of the waste. I don't like forms of energy that have waste that is toxic for hundreds of years.

Would you prefer we use unicorn farts? I happen to have a few tanks of them here myself.

So the only form of energy on earth is nuclear energy?

Oh wait, maybe we could harvest the energy of your political angst. Some sort of cynicism collection panel.

Perhaps the hydroelectric energy generated during the days after the election, collected off the massive flood of conservative tears.

Any other rad workers on Fark who are hanging out in this thread? I've worked nuke and am returning to college to get a related degree. I'm just wondering about your opinion on Obama's nuke-related stuff?

Ringshadow: Any other rad workers on Fark who are hanging out in this thread? I've worked nuke and am returning to college to get a related degree. I'm just wondering about your opinion on Obama's nuke-related stuff?

What we really want to know is ... are you getting a kick out of these replies?