McCain on Obama and Nuclear Power: “Blah, Blah, Blah”
At a weekend campaign event in Iowa, presidential contender John McCain started out trying to disparage Barack Obama’s "eloquence" and ended up tripping over his own words. "You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words,” McCain told the crowd gathered at Northern Iowa University. “We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, 'well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah.'" (Watch the video on YouTube.)
While McCain’s “blah, blah, blah” was clearly meant to suggest that Obama is simply reciting empty words on important issues, it only succeeded in making McCain sound dismissive of the very real concerns many Americans share about the potential dangers of nuclear power and the unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal.
McCain’s Trillion-Dollar Plan for Nuclear Energy
McCain has made nuclear power a cornerstone of his energy plan, and has called for 100 new U.S. nuclear reactors to be built over the next few years—a plan that could cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion according to cost estimates for new nuclear reactors developed by utilities such as Florida Power and Light.
McCain is also a longtime advocate of building a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, although he says he wouldn’t want nuclear waste to be transported through his home state of Arizona on its way to Yucca Mountain.
Apparently, McCain doesn’t have the same concerns about Americans living in other states. According to a report released by the State of Nevada, based on Department of Energy (DOE) plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, approximately 15,000 casks of high-level nuclear waste would travel by rail, truck and barge through more than 703 counties in at least 45 states. Each cask would contain between 2 tons and 15 tons of high-level waste. More than 123 million people live along the proposed truck routes alone, and more than 10 million people live within a half-mile of the proposed routes.
McCain’s Faulty Safety Claims for Nuclear Power
During campaign speeches and press interviews, McCain frequently points to the Navy's use of nuclear power as evidence of safety, but as Bloomberg News noted, McCain is always careful to talk about the absence of "serious problems" or "accidents" because of the narrow technical definitions the Navy uses to report problems with its nuclear-powered fleet. (The DOE Naval Reactors office defines a nuclear ``accident'' as an event in which a person is exposed to radiation above federal limits, and by that definition the Navy agrees that is has a clean safety record.)
McCain consistently fails to mention the numerous nuclear leaks, malfunctions and other problems the Navy has experienced over the years--including one as recently as July 2008 when the Navy reported that the USS Houston, a nuclear submarine, had been leaking radioactive coolant for two years while calling on ports in Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Guam and Hawaii. Officials at the Japanese ports of Nagasaki and Okinawa said they would refuse future visits by the USS Houston until measures were taken to prevent another nuclear incident.
McCain also frequently points to France as an example of a nation that is safely using nuclear power, something he has done far less often since France reported two radioactive leaks over the summer.
Meanwhile, almost all U.S. reactors on land have reported malfunctions, accidents or leaks, according to Bloomberg News. In fact, the Sierra Club points out that the nuclear plant McCain visited in Summer 2008 to promote nuclear power experienced a partial meltdown in 1966. Indeed, the term "China Syndrome"—a nuclear reactor melting down and going "all the way to China"—was coined as a result of the incident. More recently, the operating reactor, Fermi II, experienced a leak in 2005 and the decommissioned reactor, Fermi I, caught fire in May 2008.
None of these incidents is cataclysmic, nor have they resulted in deaths or serious injuries. Overall, the nuclear industry has done a good job of operating its facilities safely. The two things that worry people most about an increase in the use of nuclear power are:
- the ever-present potential of a catastropic event in an industry that produces deadly radiation as a byproduct, and;
- the unsolved problem of finding a way to safely dispose of the radioactive waste that scientists estimate will remain lethal for 100,000 years or more.
How McCain and Obama Differ on Nuclear Power
Like McCain, Obama believes a comprehensive energy policy that will end U.S. dependence on foreign oil must include nuclear power. Unlike McCain, Obama has said that the problems of waste disposal and safer operations must be solved before more nuclear reactors are built.
Yes, Senator McCain, if we’re going to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power then “it has to be safe”—for the sake of the “environment” and all the people who will live near those new reactors, waste-disposal sites and transport routes.
You may call that “blah, blah, blah.” I call it sound reasoning and thoughtful leadership.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Also Read:
Comments
When you have a little actual experience with nuclear power, and you can provide a little more professionalism than “Blah, Blah, Blah…”; perhaps we “nukes” might hold your arguments to a higher standard. However, you (intentionally?) failed to mention the count of workers killed in the fossil fuel (petroleum, natural gas, coal, etc..) industries, as compared to the nuclear industry. And… don’t give me that blanket statement of “look at Chernobyle…” or; “look at TMI…”; or that all encompassing “…well the Navy had leaks in….”. You see, most nuclear water from a Naval nuclear reactor is clean enough to drink, so, your BS and ignorance shines through to us nukes who really know of all of those “incidents” and what the real ramifications of them are. Basically, you come off as an ignorant 60’s hyper, that is locked in on “nuclear is bad” for your own gain…(to sell news articles and work at a news agency since you can’t actually do anything else). You are immoral, at best, purveying this nonsense, that will continue to cause our planet to fall into environmental, and economic demise; continuing to promote the death-dealing carbon fuel footprint of the freakish 60’s.
…… the “China “Syndrom” is your reference? … How 6th graderish!
“In fact, the Sierra Club points out that the nuclear plant McCain visited in Summer 2008 to promote nuclear power experienced a partial meltdown in 1966.”
Did they also mention how many people were killed, injured or had their lives shortened as a result? Would the answer be zero? How many people die every day while walking or bicycling (the environmentally prefered methods of travel)? Why do we accept the risks of walking or bicycling for short term travel (significant) but not the risks for guarateed (90% reliability factor), low cost (if we removed spurious court challenges by environmental groups), and low risk (no deaths), nuclear power? Why doesn’t the Sierra club tell the public that if we move to wind turbines and solar for electrical generation the cost of electricity will triple? Because they want it to triple. that will force conservation (as well as a massive shift of jobs to other parts of the world).
I live within an hour’s drive of a nuclear power plant. Just last week it experienced a shutdown, with the energy company spokeswoman issuing a very carefully worded reply as to the need to power down for a time. Amazing how each phrase was nuanced, with the underlying implication that “we’re all safe and there’s no chance that the community will be affected.” Such careful wording for an industry that provides ’safe’ power.
Every time I hear the ‘no deaths’ argument, I think of Chernobyl. In the case of a nuclear plant disaster, the loss of life could be astronomical. Individuals choose to walk, bike, drive – if they are casualties of their actions, these were self-determined outcomes. The argument is silly and specious.
I already willingly pay more to my utility company to have solar-generated energy come into my home. I am willing to make this sacrifice. Our national power grid needs upgrading – that’s a fact. For us to be able to effectively utilize renewable resources will take an infrastructure overhaul. I’d rather see my tax dollars go to these physical improvements that will position our country for greater energy independence in the long run than bail out the credit and banking system.
What’s wrong with conservation? I bet you drive an SUV. My family has just purchased its third Prius – we’ve owned them since they came onto the market in our area in 2001 – and the first Prius (sold to a friend) is still going strong with 175,000 miles on it. When we bought our new Prius at the dealership on Sunday, the salesperson told us that our second Prius could have sold for its original sticker value back in July when gas prices topped $4.00 a gallon. Imagine owning a car that doesn’t depreciate! We could still sell it now for $3000 less than what we paid in 2005.
Conservation equals value in the marketplace. Energy efficient homes, high MPG cars – these have high resale value. So go ahead and mock conservation, but that’s where the free market will eventually head as more and more consumers make this choice.
We’re not going to get out of our energy hole simply by conserving or simply by “digging” or finding new sources of energy.
Although I’m not convinced McCain’s plan is the right one, I am convinced that nuclear has a place in our energy future.
Note that the phenomena described by the phrase “China Syndrome” has no basis in reality even though it made for a nice movie for Jane Fonda.
Every energy solution has a trade-off. For example, we have “clean” hydropower here in the NW, but at the cost of habitat degradation for salmon. Washington has a fast-growing wind farm effort in the eastern part of the state, but windfarms are known for their dangers to bats.
I love to hear these tales of horror, but unfortunately, nuclear power generators have provided the safest form of power for over 50 years and there have caused no significant harm to anyone (inclusing the overblown Thre Mile Island accident). Tales of nuclear leaks are fraudulent in that they imply danger, wherease in most cases the NRC doesn’t ecven require premature repair before the next maintenance period. You can’t scare people any more simply by claiming nuclear radiation leaks, especially when they are of no more danger than a chst xray, even if someone were to be exposed to them. Nuclear plants of today are also far better in temrs of passive safety systems than those that existed durng Three Mile Island. ALL nuclear plants werer re assessed after that accident by the NRC and new passive safety systems installed. Anyone who claims nuclear power is not safe
is simply lying. And claims that point to events in the US Navy and especially point to events that occurred over 30 years ago, have zero relevance for discussions about commercial nuclear power. Anti-nuclear folks are the cause of globalwarming, everyone knows that – they stopped nuclear construction and substituted the dirtiest form of power production available – coal.
Now they continue their brainless attempt to destroy the only practicval, affordable, reliable , controllable and cheapest form of power production on the planet. The world is going nuclear – over 300 plants are in progress as we speak. And 33 new plants have already been started along the development pathways. There ain’t no stopping nuclear power – it remains the only affordable way to produce carbon free power. And the Yucca Mountain pan was just judged to be adequate for long term storage (which is becoming less of an issue with the advent of means to wring out virtually all of the radiactive energy from uranium before disposing of it). Nuclear remians the only practical means of controllable,reliable carbon free power.
Period. End of story.
It’s comments made from ignorance such as Linda’s that keeps nuclear power knowledge in the dark ages in this country. It’s simply amazing to me that people dredge up Chernobyl every single time the issue of nuclear power is discussed. Please, learn a little, just a little, about the type of plant Chernobyl was before comparing reactors in the remainder of the world, the U.S. included. Chernobyl was a dangerous design that NO ONE ELSE uses. It was inherently unstable, and that is why the U.S. doesn’t use it. Why don’t you talk about coal ash? This is dumped into rivers and lakes all around fossil fuel plants every single day, yet we talk up “Clean Coal” technology. Solar power? please. It’ still YEARS away from being a viable source. If it’s such a great power source, why aren’t auto manufacturers pursuing it for electric cars? IT’S NOT EFFICIENT ENOUGH YET. I’m not saying abandon it, but recognize what nuclear power can do. At least if you’re gonna oppose it, do so from a position of knowledge, not just spouting the Greenpeace party line.
Thank you all for the reasoned comments, many obviously coming from people who have worked in the industry (Navy or civilian). Clearly, when McCain points to the Navy’s record, it is a pretty impressive one.
To dismiss nuclear power or delay it indefinitely, is tantamount to telling the American people that you don’t care about the single most green, and readily available source of power today. When a candidate does that, we need to question his motives, and, in Obama’s case, that means following the money, which will lead you to groups whose motives are not always about safe, clean energy, but something else. These range from Greenpeace on the radical left side (who want to end the Western way of life) to farmers on another side (who want to see corn-based, government-subsidized ethanol).
Nuclear power is a threat to these groups, as it doesn’t fit their agenda. Same for drilling for more oil and natural gas in this country. These technologies, which are available TODAY, will not be pursued by an Obama administration. Instead, we will get more years and years of research into (unlikely to help much) technologies like solar power, electric cars, and, of course, those same ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, energy costs will rise and our dependence on foreign oil will increase (yes, it could).
Meanwhile, we could be switching transportation to a natural gas-based infrastructure, switching our electric grid to something more like 60% nuclear, 25% hydro/wind, and the rest natural gas/coal, and we could do this all with native resources, and probably make a good dent in 10 years, and be done in 25.
But, if we never start, it won’t happen. With Obama, it will never start. Mark my words (to quote a famous VP nominee).
why haven’t any of the nuclear proponents said anything about the waste? if we’re going to be generating waste from 100 more nuclear plants than we already have, where will it all go? and if it’s hazardous for thousands of years, shouldn’t the issue of disposal be resolved before we’re swimming in it?
in any case, even if the waste problem can be addressed, nuclear won’t be the ultimate answer to sustainable energy since it involves mining a finite resource and produces some pretty serious heavy metal byproducts.
it seems reasonable that obama (or any intelligent person) would want some answers before rushing headlong into a nuclear powered future. furthermore, a serious presidential candidate dismissing environmental concerns as ‘blah-blah-blah’ reinforces the impression that he doesn’t get it, never will… and will never appeal to anyone who might want some answers.
Keep risks in perspective: 35,000 Americans are slaughtered on our roads annually. Exactly ZERO Americans have been killed by nuclear accidents in the past 60 years.
That’s not to say a nuclear accident can’t happen, but the chances are slim and the results not necessarily devasting. It was calculated that had the Three Mile Island plant actually exploded (that can’t really happen) and the nuclear material emitted into the atmosphere, only one extra case of thyroid cancer per 10,000 people, and virtually no other health problems, would have resulted in the population exposed downwind.
Nuclear is very safe. I know you want to talk about the waste. Well the french recycle so that cuts on waste. The nuclear fuel waste for one plant that has run for over 20 years is stored onsite in a place that is smaller than a single wide trailer and has room to store for another 10 at least. When people look at the news and see this giant plant they don’t understand that the buildings are for the steam production and not the core. The core is smaller than a tractor trailer. Just to give some perspectives on this. Nuclear should be considered in the long term. People are safer working at a nuclear plant than living in Chicago.
Why do so many pro-nuke people assume that the alternative to nuclear is fossil fuels?
I live within the 50-mile zone of a nuclear power plant. There are signs on the streets pointing out the evacuation routes. The evacuation plan is a joke. As it is, traffic is almost at a standstill every Friday at 5pm. What happens when there’s an emergency?
Hey, D: atomic bombs have been used twice in warfare. There has only been one nuclear accident requiring evacuation (Chernobyl). So atomic war is twice as common as nuclear accidents at power plants.
Do you have a bomb shelter? Keep things in perspective.