NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, let's say that Kerry isnt a "flip-flopper".
Why is it then that he seem to support different positions of the same issue depending on who he's talking to at the time?
This time the issue at hand is nuclear power. Kerry's website says he's for it, yet in a campain site near Yucca Mountain (proposed centralized waste disposal site), he says "I'll tell you about Yucca Mountain: Not on my watch"

How can he be for nuclear power, but against the disposal of nuclear waste?

Alright, let's say that Kerry isnt a "flip-flopper".
Why is it then that he seem to support different positions of the same issue depending on who he's talking to at the time?
This time the issue at hand is nuclear power. Kerry's website says he's for it, yet in a campain site near Yucca Mountain (proposed centralized waste disposal site), he says "I'll tell you about Yucca Mountain: Not on my watch"

How can he be for nuclear power, but against the disposal of nuclear waste?


Maybe becuase he doesnt want to have nuclear waste dumped in National Parks?

See....this is a good thing.

Ask Bush how his environmental record is...

Alright, let's say that Kerry isnt a "flip-flopper".
Why is it then that he seem to support different positions of the same issue depending on who he's talking to at the time?
This time the issue at hand is nuclear power. Kerry's website says he's for it, yet in a campain site near Yucca Mountain (proposed centralized waste disposal site), he says "I'll tell you about Yucca Mountain: Not on my watch"

How can he be for nuclear power, but against the disposal of nuclear waste?

Who cares? The polling data is showing that Kerry is a Dukakis in the making. Maybe if he took a definative stance on something he would have a better shot. IT would be nice iof the dems could field a decent canditate. At least then we could have a somewhat more "controlled" govt. As it stands, this election is gonna be a joke.

I have yet to hear a coherant pro Kerry argument.

Maybe becuase he doesnt want to have nuclear waste dumped in National Parks?

See....this is a good thing.

Ask Bush how his environmental record is...
It isnt a national park as in Yellow Stone or something like that... it's in the middle of the Nevada Test Site. Where a lot of the nuclear weapon tests were held.

Yucca mountain was built for the sole purpose to hold nuclear waste securely underground for 10,000 years.

Who cares? The polling data is showing that Kerry is a Dukakis in the making. Maybe if he took a definative stance on something he would have a better shot. IT would be nice iof the dems could field a decent canditate. At least then we could have a somewhat more "controlled" govt. As it stands, this election is gonna be a joke.

I have yet to hear a coherant pro Kerry argument.


Thats becuase your unwilling to listen to any.

The Republicans will furthermore state that Kerry flip-flopped on this issue, because he voted for the Yucca Mountain facility.

The truth is a bit different. Kerry did indeed vote on bills that included amongst myriad other things, funding for research into the feasability of the Yucca Mountain site.

Every time there was a straight up tes/no vote on actually dumping in Yucca Mountain, Kerry voted against it.

Who cares? The polling data is showing that Kerry is a Dukakis in the making. Maybe if he took a definative stance on something he would have a better shot. IT would be nice iof the dems could field a decent canditate. At least then we could have a somewhat more "controlled" govt. As it stands, this election is gonna be a joke.

I have yet to hear a coherant pro Kerry argument.

It's very difficult to hear when one puts their fingers in their ears and hums.

The Republicans will furthermore state that Kerry flip-flopped on this issue, because he voted for the Yucca Mountain facility.

The truth is a bit different. Kerry did indeed vote on bills that included amongst myriad other things, funding for research into the feasability of the Yucca Mountain site.

Every time there was a straight up tes/no vote on actually dumping in Yucca Mountain, Kerry voted against it.
That's the whole point. He voted against Yucca Mountain. Why? If he supports nuclear power, as he does on his website, how can he be against dumping waste at a secure facility which the sole purpose is to hold waste underground with no release for 10,000 years?

That's the whole point. He voted against Yucca Mountain. Why? If he supports nuclear power, as he does on his website, how can he be against dumping waste at a secure facility which the sole purpose is to hold waste underground with no release for 10,000 years?

the reason is because research into the security of the site was halted by the Bush administration who okay'ed the site as-is. Others felt more testing was needed.

the reason is because research into the security of the site was halted by the Bush administration who okay'ed the site as-is. Others felt more testing was needed.
No, actually the completion of the site was halted by a federal judge, who said that 10,000 years wasnt enough... it should be 100,000 years. (a goal that most experts agree that is impossible to achieve)

I guess the same way people can be for tougher sentencing whilst campaigning against prisons being built close to where they live, the same way most people want rubbish disposal systems, but dont want a dump near where they live...

Do you really need someone to explain to you why someone who supports nuclear power, doesnt necessarily by extension believe that everywhere and anywhere you could name is necessarily an ok place to dump the waste that results, or are you being deliberately obtuse in the hopes that everyone else will fail to notice the level of illogical reasoning inherent in your assertion that someone not supporting waste disposal at location X cannot therefore be supportive of whatever institution is creating the waste.

I for instance dont approve of dumping any kind of waste into say the oceans, does this mean I am anti on everything that produces waste? According to the reasoning you had to employ to make your assertion yes. So how about you, do you support a waste dump on the sidewalk outside your home, or are you anti-capitalist, anti industry, and totally opposed to any activity that could result in waste? Or could it be that your assertion re Kerry is just a load crud, posited in the absence of any real complaint to make against him?

Maybe becuase he doesnt want to have nuclear waste dumped in National Parks?

See....this is a good thing.

Ask Bush how his environmental record is...
Nice return volley!!

I guess the same way people can be for tougher sentencing whilst campaigning against prisons being built close to where they live, the same way most people want rubbish disposal systems, but dont want a dump near where they live...

Do you really need someone to explain to you why someone who supports nuclear power, doesnt necessarily by extension believe that everywhere and anywhere you could name is necessarily an ok place to dump the waste that results, or are you being deliberately obtuse in the hopes that everyone else will fail to notice the level of illogical reasoning inherent in your assertion that someone not supporting waste disposal at location X cannot therefore be supportive of whatever institution is creating the waste.

I for instance dont approve of dumping any kind of waste into say the oceans, does this mean I am anti on everything that produces waste? According to the reasoning you had to employ to make your assertion yes. So how about you, do you support a waste dump on the sidewalk outside your home, or are you anti-capitalist, anti industry, and totally opposed to any activity that could result in waste? Or could it be that your assertion re Kerry is just a load crud, posited in the absence of any real complaint to make against him?
I dont see how questioning his opposition to Yucca mountain is being "deliberatly obtuse".

It just seems that Kerry is embracing 2 opposing stances depending on who's he speaking to.
He's for nuclear power. Being for nuclear power, he has to support the dumping of the waste somewhere.
He's against Yucca mountain (at least when he talks to people in Nevada). A site specifically designed to contain nuclear waste, and in a location, by it's very nature to be "not in anyone's back yard". It's situated in the middle of the Nevada Test Site. It's an unpopulated land area of some 5,470 square miles. As in no one lives there.

Nice return volley!!
bah, add something or go home.

As I said, it's not a national park, it's a weapon test site that has seen nuclear weapon tests for over 4 decades prior to the test moratorium.

bah, add something or go home.

As I said, it's not a national park, it's a weapon test site that has seen nuclear weapon tests for over 4 decades prior to the test moratorium.

Think of the mutants though. How long will their voice go unheard?

apropos of nothing, would a two-headed mutant get one or two votes?

Think of the mutants though. How long will their voice go unheard?
Probably until their voice boxes mutate into functionality.

I dont see how questioning his opposition to Yucca mountain is being "deliberatly obtuse".

It just seems that Kerry is embracing 2 opposing stances depending on who's he speaking to.
He's for nuclear power. Being for nuclear power, he has to support the dumping of the waste somewhere.
He's against Yucca mountain (at least when he talks to people in Nevada). A site specifically designed to contain nuclear waste, and in a location, by it's very nature to be "not in anyone's back yard". It's situated in the middle of the Nevada Test Site. It's an unpopulated land area of some 5,470 square miles. As in no one lives there.

Good points!






"Well boys this is it! Nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Rooskies!"

Think of the mutants though. How long will their voice go unheard?

Will someone please think of Godzilla and Gamera?

BTW-Imagine if we could somehow use this waste to turn our boys into a fighting force of extrordinary proportions. Imagine, 50ft GI's. Esp letting them loose on our enemies. They'd have the USA's gratitude.

I dont see how questioning his opposition to Yucca mountain is being "deliberatly obtuse".
Neither do I, it is the premise on which you base your questioning of his opposition that I was referring to, basically because I find it hard to believe that anyone is stupid enough to believe that you cant oppose particular means of waste disposal whilst still supporting the institutions that generate the waste. I dont think you have to be against McDonalds to believe that Big Mac packaging doesnt belong on the sidewalk. Your assertion implies (and is premised on) the notion that someone either supports waste disposal plan A, or is against waste creating process B. To suggest this is no more logical than suggesting that because I dont think untreated sewerage should be dumped in the oceans, I am against people excreting.

It just seems that Kerry is embracing 2 opposing stances depending on who's he speaking to.
He's for nuclear power. Being for nuclear power, he has to support the dumping of the waste somewhere.
Exactly somewhere and by some method. You may note that there are more somewheres than Yukka mountain, and that there is more than one method of disposing of waste, some safer than others.

He's against Yucca mountain (at least when he talks to people in Nevada). A site specifically designed to contain nuclear waste, and in a location, by it's very nature to be "not in anyone's back yard". It's situated in the middle of the Nevada Test Site. It's an unpopulated land area of some 5,470 square miles. As in no one lives there.
Well perhaps he agrees that 10,000 years is not long enough. Whether or not someone lives there is not relevent to the reasoning. Either you can conceive that people who generally support a particular thing dont necessarily agree with every single possible contingency for dealing with unwanting derivitives of the process and are being deliberately obtuse in suggesting otherwise, or you by implication must take the stance of either supporting your house being used as a rubbish dump or being anti on any activity that can create waste.

So again I ask which is it? Do you agree that it is possible to support nuclear power without supporting the dumping of waste at a particular site, or do you believe that if you support a process that creates waste you must be supportive of any means of getting rid of the waste regardless of all other considerations and possible alternatives?

Will someone please think of Godzilla and Gamera?

BTW-Imagine if we could somehow use this waste to turn our boys into a fighting force of extrordinary proportions. Imagine, 50ft GI's. Esp letting them loose on our enemies. They'd have the USA's gratitude.

They'd also be unbeatable in basketball.

(snipped to answer his question)
So again I ask which is it? Do you agree that it is possible to support nuclear power without supporting the dumping of waste at a particular site, or do you believe that if you support a process that creates waste you must be supportive of any means of getting rid of the waste regardless of all other considerations and possible alternatives?
I agree that it's possible to support nuclear power, but be against Yucca mountain.
Perhaps Im just not making my point properly.
The way I see it, minds with far more information on nuclear waste disposal, who've devoted far greater time on the issue than Kerry has, have come up with the most logical plan and location for dumping nuclear waste. It's hard to imagine a more hospital area for feasable nuclear waste disposal than the Nevada test site. Yet Kerry opposes it, because, in my opinion he's pandering to the crowd he's talking to.

They'd also be unbeatable in basketball.
Actually, a team of 4' dwarfs could beat that team in basketball, since if the human body were to grow to 50' it's bones would snap under the weight, in particular the hip joints and associated bones.

Now, back to the topic at hand.....

Actually, a team of 4' dwarfs could beat that team in basketball, since if the human body were to grow to 50' it's bones would snap under the weight, in particular the hip joints and associated bones.

Now, back to the topic at hand.....

Only if, when designing the 50' men, the square/cube law were dismissed. An increase in bone strength and diameter would be engineered in.

but yes, we digress.

I agree that it's possible to support nuclear power, but be against Yucca mountain.
Perhaps Im just not making my point properly.
The way I see it, minds with far more information on nuclear waste disposal, who've devoted far greater time on the issue than Kerry has, have come up with the most logical plan and location for dumping nuclear waste. It's hard to imagine a more hospital area for feasable nuclear waste disposal than the Nevada test site. Yet Kerry opposes it, because, in my opinion he's pandering to the crowd he's talking to.
Exactly, in your opinion, however it is just an opinion. Kerry may be right or wrong about Yukka, but the fact that your opinion is that his stance is a non-stance that merely involves telling people what they want to hear, is an opinion and not necessarily reflective of the truth. Just because you think it is so, doesnt make Kerry a flip flopper. As I understand it, Kerry is far from the only one opposed to Yukka mountain, but the only one running for President who claims to be opposed. This proves that people can be genuinely opposed (indeed to assert that Kerry is only opposed as an attempt to garner support proves that some people must be opposed, else being opposed wouldnt get Kerry any support to begin with) and nothing you have contended proves that kerry's opposition is not as genuine as anyone elses. The fact that you wish to interperate events in such a way as to paint Kerry as a flip flopper proves nothing about Kerry's views really, but is more suggestive of your own.

Actually, a team of 4' dwarfs could beat that team in basketball, since if the human body were to grow to 50' it's bones would snap under the weight, in particular the hip joints and associated bones.

Now, back to the topic at hand.....

Of course the bones would be the appropriate sizes. This ain't no cheap Rooskie nuclear waste, this is 100% pure, uncut American waste. The best in the world.

Who are opposed to Yucca mountain (and it's Yucca, not Yukka)? So far all I've been able to find is the Nuclear information research service, a very anti-nuclear group, anti-nuclear power opponents in general, the citizens of Nevada, and the remnants of Western Shoshone people.

As the situation stands, Yucca is the only site available in the US. It's designed to store waste with no leakage, or radiation emissions to the public at large and to last for 10,000 years, nearly twice that of all human recorded history. At the current rate, by 2010 most of the operating nuclear power plants will have to shut down due to lack of storage space.
Any other site would take significantly longer to construct (Yucca is already constructed and ready to recieve shipments) not to mention the decades needed to locate and design the new site.

If Yucca mountain storage facility is not going to be used, it means the shutdown of most nuclear power plants in the US, along with the storage of waste in above ground sites near populated areas.

To suggest that Kerry was opposed to Yucca for scientific reasons and not vote garnishment is naive.

Of course the bones would be the appropriate sizes. This ain't no cheap Rooskie nuclear waste, this is 100% pure, uncut American waste. The best in the world.
Gymoor had it correct with the double/cube ratio. If you double the size of something, you increase it's mass (and weight) by 8.

Gymoor had it correct with the double/cube ratio. If you double the size of something, you increase it's mass (and weight) by 8.

and it's structural strength only increases by 4.

Gymoor had it correct with the double/cube ratio. If you double the size of something, you increase it's mass (and weight) by 8.


Thats all textbook stuff. This radioactive juice would counter all of those theories in some weird, yet awesome atomic way. We as mere humans cannot possibly know the truely extrordinary magnitude of all this.



"Well, that's it boys! Nuclear combat...toe to toe with the Rooskies!"

Who are opposed to Yucca mountain (and it's Yucca, not Yukka)? So far all I've been able to find is the Nuclear information research service, a very anti-nuclear group, anti-nuclear power opponents in general, the citizens of Nevada, and the remnants of Western Shoshone people.
The spelling is irrelevent to the logical reasoning involved (and not of great interest to someone who is dyslexic. I take the implications of the above to mean that hardly anyone is opposed.
To suggest that Kerry was opposed to Yucca for scientific reasons and not vote garnishment is naive.
And yet implications of this statement are that opposing Yucca might provide Kerry with significant numbers of votes. All naivety aside, it is illogical to suggest someone is trying to gain votes by asserting to have a veiw that next to no one has. To suggest no one thinks what Kerry is saying, and he is only saying it because the people who agree will vote for him, just does not make sense.

Equally as I suggested earlier, even if Kerry is wrong to believe Yucca is unsuitable or not the best option, that doesnt mean he didnt decide this based on the extent of his scientific knowledge combined with his genuinely felt principals. Being wrong does not necessarily mean being insincere.

The spelling is irrelevent to the logical reasoning involved (and not of great interest to someone who is dyslexic. I take the implications of the above to mean that hardly anyone is opposed.

And yet implications of this statement are that opposing Yucca might provide Kerry with significant numbers of votes. All naivety aside, it is illogical to suggest someone is trying to gain votes by asserting to have a veiw that next to no one has. To suggest no one thinks what Kerry is saying, and he is only saying it because the people who agree will vote for him, just does not make sense.

Equally as I suggested earlier, even if Kerry is wrong to believe Yucca is unsuitable or not the best option, that doesnt mean he didnt decide this based on the extent of his scientific knowledge combined with his genuinely felt principals. Being wrong does not necessarily mean being insincere.
Even if it's next to no one, it could concievable win the state of Nevada for Kerry. That is not an illogical goal. It seems to be at the heart of campaigning.

If it could win the state, then the majority of elligable voters (by implication) in that state must have the view that Kerry is espousing. Now I have to say since the majority of elligable voters in the state of Nevada are not running for President, it must be possible to oppose Yukka for reasons other than vote garnering. Further is there any evidence that all these people in Nevada do not support nuclear power as opposed to merely being against Yukka being used for waste storage? If not, then we still are left with the fact that it is possible to be for nuclear power and against storing the waste at Yukka.

I dont see how questioning his opposition to Yucca mountain is being "deliberatly obtuse".

It just seems that Kerry is embracing 2 opposing stances depending on who's he speaking to.
He's for nuclear power. Being for nuclear power, he has to support the dumping of the waste somewhere.
He's against Yucca mountain (at least when he talks to people in Nevada). A site specifically designed to contain nuclear waste, and in a location, by it's very nature to be "not in anyone's back yard". It's situated in the middle of the Nevada Test Site. It's an unpopulated land area of some 5,470 square miles. As in no one lives there.

Kerry is pro-nuclear power ONLY because it is an 'alternate' energy source.

You can bet that a clean fusion reactor would immediately jump further up Kerry's list than 'dirty' uranium fission.

Kerry has consistently argued for alternate fuel sources.... since fossil fuels are finite and, chiefly, located in difficult environmental/political regions.

Now - at the same time that Kerry is Pro-alternate fuel, it is not inconceivable that he would rather not have to deal with toxic waste.

People have talked about how the "Yucca Mountain" site has been under construction for four decades.... and, all the time it was being constructed, people in the locality have been arguing against it. Kerry isn't starting a 'war' on the Yucca Mountain issue, his is a voice ADDED to a resistance that already exists.

Who are opposed to Yucca mountain (and it's Yucca, not Yukka)? So far all I've been able to find is the Nuclear information research service, a very anti-nuclear group, anti-nuclear power opponents in general, the citizens of Nevada, and the remnants of Western Shoshone people.

As the situation stands, Yucca is the only site available in the US. It's designed to store waste with no leakage, or radiation emissions to the public at large and to last for 10,000 years, nearly twice that of all human recorded history. At the current rate, by 2010 most of the operating nuclear power plants will have to shut down due to lack of storage space.
Any other site would take significantly longer to construct (Yucca is already constructed and ready to recieve shipments) not to mention the decades needed to locate and design the new site.

If Yucca mountain storage facility is not going to be used, it means the shutdown of most nuclear power plants in the US, along with the storage of waste in above ground sites near populated areas.

To suggest that Kerry was opposed to Yucca for scientific reasons and not vote garnishment is naive.

a) Surely, as the former 'owners' of the land, the native voice is important?

b) Isn't the resistance of 'the citizens of Nevada' enough? Why shouldn't the citizens of Nevada be allowed to resist nuclear waste dumping?

c) The Yucca Mountain site is designed to be able to hold waste without leaking... and the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.

d) i) If nuclear power plants cannot remove their waste, and the only option is one site, then they SHOULD close down... at least until other sites are located. Hell, ship it overseas... I'm sure there are third-world locations (with practically zero population) who would be HAPPY to stockpile nuclear waste for a bit of America's riches.
d) ii) I believe there are locations in England designed to receive Japanese nuclear waste in just such a deal.

e) Just how many votes do you think Kerry is 'garnishing', by opposing Yucca Mountain? As you said - there are few parties actually SERIOUSLY interested.

a) Surely, as the former 'owners' of the land, the native voice is important?
Never said it wasnt, however as the area is currently unlivable as in long term occupation, and will be for many years to come.

b) Isn't the resistance of 'the citizens of Nevada' enough? Why shouldn't the citizens of Nevada be allowed to resist nuclear waste dumping?
No, the resistance of "the citizens of Nevada" isnt enough. It's a situation of NIMBY... not in my back yard. I understand their reservation. But I would like a scientific reason for the resistance, not a gut feeling of "gee, I dont think I would like it here".

c) The Yucca Mountain site is designed to be able to hold waste without leaking... and the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.
All of the opposition has to do with transport and longitivity of the storage. Even the "experts" hired by the opposition haven't been able to find flaws in the storage design of the site.

d) i) If nuclear power plants cannot remove their waste, and the only option is one site, then they SHOULD close down... at least until other sites are located. Hell, ship it overseas... I'm sure there are third-world locations (with practically zero population) who would be HAPPY to stockpile nuclear waste for a bit of America's riches.
d) ii) I believe there are locations in England designed to receive Japanese nuclear waste in just such a deal.
Nuclear power plants provide 20% of the energy usage of the US. Clean "fusion" isnt feasable. Solar isnt feasable for large markets. Wind isnt feasable for large markets. There just isnt any feasable energy source to take up the slack when the nuclear plants shut down. The only thing let to do is to increase fossile fuel consumption. Nuclear power is substantially better than that option.

e) Just how many votes do you think Kerry is 'garnishing', by opposing Yucca Mountain? As you said - there are few parties actually SERIOUSLY interested.
Nevada's electoral votes. If the election is as closely contested as people think it's shaping up to be, then every EC vote counts.