Presidential positions on science revealed…or not

Science is good, as long as it doesn't show that my religious doctrines are completely loony.

What's to ask about the dinosaurs?? I killed them all in the flood. End of story.

I don't believe anything positive he might say.

The opposite of fair and intelligent analysis. IOW, the sort of statement that is condemned whenever it is uttered by, well, "them".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

#2: Poe's Law! </captain obvious>

Obama's positions on science are more attractive.

The opposite of fair and intelligent analysis.

Nope. The concluding sentence explains why I have grounds to doubt the honesty of his opinions. I can't believe he has any real commitment to science when he picks a yahoo like that for vice president -- it's an overwhelming piece of evidence that puts the lie to any of his protestations.

I've no problem with the nuclear power plant answer - Obama says something fairly similar.
McCain certainly doesn't like the question of stem cells, though.
Are we likely to see answers from Biden and Palin?

Palin would be interested in dinosaurs, if she could shoot them.

This running mate?

Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Which founding fathers was she referring to? That phrase wasn't added to the Pledge until 1954.

HAHAHA! What a buffoon! Palin is an idiot. You would think I would love her but you would be wrong (I hate how she backpedaled on My Iraq War Mission) and because she is a woman.

I can't believe he has any real commitment to science when he picks a yahoo like that for vice president -- it's an overwhelming piece of evidence that puts the lie to any of his protestations.

And that obviates his record of Senate votes, for good or for ill? One could certainly compare his statement about science with how he voted, an informative act.

True, I wouldn't, because I lack both the time and the interest to do so. But then I wouldn't write as if an obvious political choice (pandering, if you will) has made such analysis of no import.

Politics is complex, and it won't do to treat it like it is simple.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Re: the nuclear power plant issue. Because of global warming, some believe that nuclear may be the way to go, at least temporarily, until fusion energy becomes a reality. Here in Alberta most of our electricity comes from coal fired power plants. It's definitely a way to reduce greenhouse gas output, but of course has it's negative aspects, as well.
I've recently read a book by James Lovelock called "The Revenge of Gaia". Lovelock considers it to be the much lesser of two evils, and that the aversion most have to nuclear power is not rational.
I'm not sure what to think myself, and would be interested in some informed rational opinions.

God @9; Also, she's involved in electoral politics. I understand you aren't a fan of that either.

McCain's done so much to destroy his credibility over the past few months that I can no longer believe anything he says about anything. His Congressional record doesn't matter; he's shown very clearly that he's willing to trash any principles he ever may have had to win this election.

Obama is probably being vague on some of these issues because they're not what he *cares* about currently. He's definitely pro-human, and will be pro-technology mainly as a result of that (just like McCain is anti-human and will be anti-biotech as a result). No point flaunting it until he's in office.

I'm mostly basing this off of his changing opinion of NASA, but eh. Bush I was technically more pro-space than Kennedy, so I'm okay with the guy who gives moving speeches and can get things done, over one who actually cares about tech. It'll be awhile before the US can handle a science prof for President, anyway...

The plan to put more nuclear power plants in place is one of the few things I like that I've heard from McCain. Nuclear power is a currently existing technology that can address US energy needs.

Compared to any other technology that can produce enough power, nuclear is clean, safe, and secure.

Oh politics again. Let loose the ad hominems!

McCain-

I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution.

This from a man who admits that he didn't know how to send an e-mail on a personal computer till a month or so ago.

.
McCain-

"I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get."

-after being asked whether he uses a Mac or a PC

The opposite of fair and intelligent analysis.

Infortunately, Glen, this does not work very well when you are dealing with liars.

The opposite of fair and intelligent analysis.

Someone didn't hear the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf when he was younger, I guess.

#11:

the aversion most have to nuclear power is not rational.

That is absolutely true. Most people have no idea what the disadvantages of nuclear power are, beyond what is depicted in Scifi Channel specials.

And that obviates his record of Senate votes, for good or for ill?

His record pretty much went out the window when he changed all his positions in the past year. Certainly he has been trying to distance himself from it to appease his new voter base.

I did read through both sets of answers with as objective an eye as I could manage. Here is my take on it. McCain's answers were mostly of one of two forms.

1. This is a wonderful area of human endeavor, here is what I have done in the past to support this.
2. This is an area where their are ethical/economic/etc considerations.

Obama's answers were also mostly of one of two forms.

1. I intend to enact the following programs in this area: (list, usually with funding)
2. This is an area where more investigation should be conducted into whether more government support is needed

One significant area that differed from this was the area of climate changes. Both candidates aknowledged that golbal warming is anthropogenic. Both acknowledged a need for emission reductions (80% below 1990 levels by 2050 for Obama, 60% by McCain). Both support Cap and Trade systems. Both advocated increased use of nuclear power and "clean" coal technology. Obama also expressed support for alternative sources and distribution systems for energy, McCain did not comment on such.McCain was also very clear in his opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

Politics is complex, and it won't do to treat it like it is simple.

Politics is complex in the same way that which breed of dog shit makes a better meal is complex.

>...but I just can't care very much about McCain's answers at all. I don't believe anything positive he might say.

That's a very dogmatic stand. It can be compared with that of religious extremists who will not let any information, facts or not, sway them from their believes.

Are you afraid that McCain might have positive and human sides, making it more difficult to threat him and the rest of the democrats as subhumans who deserve no respect?

You have a lot of good things to say on other subjects, but when it comes to politics you act just like any other religious extremist.

For example, some days ago you had a post with the title "I despise quote-miners so much" where you made a very good point against quotes taken out of context. But not long before that a another post with the title "John McCain is a flip-flopping opportunist" contained a sequence from "The daily show" where quotes taken out of context were use to portray McCain as a "flip-flopping opportunist".

Just one example that when it comes to politics, all sense and principles are thrown away, and you're behaving like a religious extremist. "Democrats good, republicans bad. And I will close my eyes and ears to anything that might indicate otherwise".

Alan #8, Love the Pledge of Allegiance quote, wonder if Palin's aware that the founding fathers were all dead by the time that was written? (1892) You may be amused by Fred Reed's view on the election, http://fredoneverything.net/Election.shtml

Galbinus_Caeli: Where do you get that McCain was "very clear in his opposition to embryonic stem cell research?" He actually said: "I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research." He was very clear that he was against creating embryos specifically to harvest stem cells, but that's about it.

That's a very dogmatic stand. It can be compared with that of religious extremists who will not let any information, facts or not, sway them from their believes.

That's funny. Creationists say the exact same thing about people who are convinced of evolution.

Are you afraid that McCain might have positive and human sides, making it more difficult to threat him and the rest of the democrats as subhumans who deserve no respect?

That's funny. Creationists say the exact same thing about teaching creationism in science class.

That was an interesting read for the morning. McCain is still full of shit.

Also 1000000GET!!!

I am sorry if I am a one issue nut but I just do not understand how anyone can say that nuclear power is clean and safe or cheep?
maybe for a week or a year or 20 years but no one can guarantee that it will be "safe" over the half life of any of the results. Are they for some things 500,000 years or more? as far as cheep is concerned how is the safe storage and removal of all of the waste both high level spent fuel, low level waste and the obsolete crumbling reactor building itself going to be payed for?
this is not a short term normal cost problem. We have never looked at anything we have ever done with this kind of time frame in mind unless it might have been the Pyramids of Egypt. Our energy systems are the way they are because government intervention and support not market forces or engineering alone. Do we need to maybe take a much closer look at what we are doing instead of letting ourselves be stampeded in to some "quick answer" by vested interests

#26While McCain does say "I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research", it is clear to me from the rest of the answer that he means research on the extant few lines of cells (six? eight?). Which would be like supporting auto research in 1880 without allowing studies of those new fangled internal combustion gasoline engines.

McCain doesn't seem to be running away from stem cell research, at least, not if we listen to McCain. His newest ad could be titled, "Stem cells, stem cells, stem cells!"

Ironically, I found out about this from an article by an Obama supporter on "how to alienate McCain from his base: show them how he's stabbing them in the back with stem cell research!"

I think if they focus on showing how McCain stabs his base in the back, they may end up winning him a bunch of independent votes...

wow, under 1.000 post to go till one million.

Anybody desecrated any crackers? That would bring it over the top.

#29:
While I am by no means an expert on the subject, here is how I see nuclear power:

-cleanliness: Well, on the downside, there's the nuclear waste. On the upside, nothing else. So the problem is what to do with the radioactive waste. Well, I don't know, I'm sure there are uses for it. Also, I don't fancy having to live underwater.

-safe: Nuclear power is very safe. Tsjernobyl happened because of stupidity. And we know better now. (At least, you'd think so)

From what more I could gather from your post (it's very confusingly written. Please use paragraphs for clarity in the future) you are worried about the long term effects of the nuclear waste, or something. I'm not sure why...it's not getting any more dangerous over time.
Well, unless my visions of the future come true where religious nuts have taken over the world, banned science, and thus forgotten how those reactor thingies really work and what those lead barrels with the nuclear danger symbol on it are for and do something stupid.

(On a final note, I'd like to remind everyone that nuclear power is by no means infinite - it's not like we have an unlimited supply of Uranium. And it might seem like we could do with what we have now for practically forever, but then think of this: how long did the people think they could do with the oil they had when they first found a use for it?

#29
There has been no injuries due to nuclear power in the US (safe). It produces no CO2 or other bad gases (nuclear waste can be easily transported and stored until inert) (clean). The operational cost are low after its been built (cheAp).

The only real problems that I know of is that the only company that makes the core reactors has a three year wait. Also you have to shut them down for a few months a year for cleaning and maintenance.

My favorite quote "I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation's scientists and engineers with during each mission."

By uniquely qualified he must be referring to his inability to use a computer.

He depended on other people in the Navy, now he depends on his wife. Change you can count on!

But dinosaurs were planted by the Devil, so they don't have anything to do with Science! In fact they're a matter of theology and "Congress shall pass no law ...", so no you cannot ask gov. Palin about dinosaurs.

Shhssshhh. You people.

well I am no expert that is for sure I just have questions.
How can we think that we can store something until "it is inert(clean) when we have not done anything else over anywhere close to a similar time period?
The operational cost is cheap if you do not take into account the waste cost. Who pays for that? How much will that cost for say 50 years of transportation and "safe storage"?
The only answer I hear is we will fix that in some future to come some never seen future. I am sorry it just sounds to me like we will just put it in the river or buried in the dirt and it will be diluted and be safe practices we have been doing all along and now are beginning to see how short sighted that was.

Why is an either or choice either oil or nuclear? Or nuclear energy or water world?

If all energy sources, technologies had to make it without any government support what would be the best? The cheapest?

The safety issue depends on people in the end and people make mistakes are sometimes stupid and lazy. It seems overly optimistic to think we can keep all this "dangerous material" safe for any long period of time. We seem to be polluting everything else at a remarkable rate what makes nuclear waste different?

Anybody desecrated any crackers?

I stepped on a honey graham cracker the other night. Does that count?

But not long before that a another post with the title "John McCain is a flip-flopping opportunist" contained a sequence from "The daily show" where quotes taken out of context were use to portray McCain as a "flip-flopping opportunist".

And what were the corrected contexts for those quotes?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/934622/

Pa in on the Bush Doctrine

Which would be like supporting auto research in 1880 without allowing studies of those new fangled internal combustion gasoline engines.

God, that would have only left them with wood, steam, diesel, ethanol, and electricity. The horrors!

Jesus squid. In 1918 a company in the US produced and sold an electric car that went 40mph and got 100 miles to a charge. (It was called a Milburn.)

If only we had the kind of willingness to experiment with technology (rather than just play variations on a theme) as we did then...

Uncle Frogy:

Regarding nuclear power, here's an article that's easy to read giving the run down as to its benefits (lots) and risks (very few):
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092

nuclear waste can be easily transported and stored until inert) (clean)

You are an ignoramus. Know what the half-life of 238U is?

My admitted limited understanding of nuclear power is that the waste is solid, making it much less likely to go places where you don't want it to, after you put it somewhere, while the gaseous wastes of hydrocarbons goes into the atmosphere and spreads all over the planet.

So the very worst case scenario for nuclear waste would be to have an area of the surface of the earth rendered uninhabitable to humans. We would have at least some control over the extend and location of this area. (And the depopulated area around Chernobyl now supports a thriving, healthy ecosystem, notwithstanding the occasional mutant individual specimen that has turned up.)

The best place to put nuclear waste would be to eject it into interplanetary space, perhaps ultimately to fall into the sun. Though by the time we'd have the tech to do that safely, we shouldn't be needing fission power anymore.

The majority of the cost of nuclear power is regulatory, and much of that is unnecessary and came about due to political factors, primarily from the irrational public concern over it.

However, the supply of fissionable material is limited. If we converted all fossil fuel power generation to nuclear, it is unclear if the nonrenewable fuel would actual last any longer than a few decades.

thanks for the link about Nuclear energy I have one for you.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid504.php

The biggest problem with nuclear power, in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (and more parochially, US dependence on mid-East oil), is simply that it can't be deployed fast enough. This was one implicit conclusion of the IPCC's WGIII report earlier this year - they reckoned, IIRC, that nuclear power could grow to meet 18% of global energy demand by 2030, as compared to the current 16% - but that safety, waste disposal and proliferation remain constraints. Like all means of making electricity, nuclear is also unable to replace liquid fuels. I'm sure some nuclear stations will be built, but those who see nuclear power as a nice technical solution that means we don't have to cut energy use sharply, are at least as irrational as those who oppose it root and branch. I'd say proliferation is the second biggest problem, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons technologies and materials are so closely related. Not directly a problem in countries that already have nuclear weapons, but if there's a strong nuclear industry, it will press for the right to sell abroad wherever profitable. Capital spent on nuclear stations in the near future would from this point of view be better spent on energy efficiency, demand reduction, renewables, protecting tropical forests and preventing emissions from agriculture.

Isn't the mining process for nuclear fuel pretty environmentally damaging? Seems like we would need to address that issue before we can declare nuclear a better option than fossil fuels.

So the very worst case scenario for nuclear waste would be to have an area of the surface of the earth rendered uninhabitable to humans. We would have at least some control over the extend and location of this area. [...]
The best place to put nuclear waste would be to eject it into interplanetary space, perhaps ultimately to fall into the sun.

Because rockets have never crashed, and billion dollar shuttles have never exploded in the atmosphere showing parts over a huge swathe of the nation. Trying to to control where high-level nuclear waste goes by launching it into space is insane. (And it would also take approximately 500 Shuttle flights per year to dispose of the currently annual production of waste in the US -- nuclear waste is generally pretty heavy.)

lylebot wrote:

McCain's done so much to destroy his credibility over the past few months that I can no longer believe anything he says about anything.

And yet as he lies his poll numbers have risen, making a tight race tighter.

His Congressional record doesn't matter; he's shown very clearly that he's willing to trash any principles he ever may have had to win this election.

Alas, the world is probably sicker than you know:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/09/you-should-have-expected-spanis…

Natalie@47,
There are certainly severe environmental problems associated with uranium mining (the tailings are both radioactive and toxic); but so there are with oil and gas extraction, and far worse (because spread over much wider areas) with coal. No form of energy generation developed or in prospect is problem-free.

Jesus squid. In 1918 a company in the US produced and sold an electric car that went 40mph and got 100 miles to a charge. (It was called a Milburn.)

http://www.milburn.us/pics/ron1918a_10_300w.jpg

Ooo! Sexy! :-) Add modern safety features and you're lucky to make it to the end of the driveway. I'm just sayin'.

How about the Stanley Steamer as an early alternative auto? Burned kerosene, I think, although I suppose you could burn anything. I always remember the one Natalie Wood drove in The Great Race.

Know what the half-life of 238U is?

You reprocess the uranium (U235, actually, I think) back into usable fuel. Any plutonium is blended with other materials to make metal oxide fuel which can be used in other types of reactors. This sort of recycling the waste of one plant type into fuel for another plant type can increase the amount of extractable energy from a unit of uranium by more than a factor of 50.

The way things are going, the rest of the world will be happily humming along on nuke power and recycling the waste while the US hides its head in the sand because of FUD.

Picture of French waste processing plant:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/feb07/images/nuc01.jpg

The blue glow is Cherenkov radiation.

I am sorry it just sounds to me like we will just put it in the river or buried in the dirt

Comparing the Yucca Mt nuclear waste repository to burying it in dirt is not a very accurate.

Why is an either or choice either oil or nuclear? Or nuclear energy or water world?

This is a False dichotomy. The trick is to build reactors AND develop renewable sources.
Right now solar, wind and other renewable are just not developed to the point where they can make a major dent in energy production. Solar and wind have peak production times and there is no power storage system that is currently implementable on a large scale for solar and wind. I would love for us to be able to only use renewable sources but at this time the technology isn't ready. Thinking that we can just go to only using renewable sources is just not reality based at this point. Nuclear power is a good option to help get us off fossil fuels.

Waiting for the technology to be ready for large scale implementation before decreasing dependence on CO2 producing sources would be a stupid idea, and could be one of the last stupid ideas our species makes.

Right now solar, wind and other renewable are just not developed to the point where they can make a major dent in energy production.

And how long does it take to build a typical nuclear power plant -- a decade? Twelve years? Longer in some cases? How does that compare to bringing on line alternative sources and conservation?

The notion that nuclear is a short-term solution for energy production is just as false as saying that off-shore drilling is a short-term solution for high gas prices -- neither will have an effect in the near horizon.

#54

And how long does it take to build a typical nuclear power plant -- a decade? Twelve years? Longer in some cases? How does that compare to bringing on line alternative sources and conservation?

The notion that nuclear is a short-term solution for energy production is just as false as saying that off-shore drilling is a short-term solution for high gas prices -- neither will have an effect in the near horizon.

Yes a decade is about average.
There is no way to know how long it will take to bring on line alternative fuel sources. Right now technology still has to be created to store the energy from peak production times. No one knows how long the technology will take to develop and then implement.

No one is saying nuclear is a short term solution. It is part of a long term solution.

Tulse #47: That's why I said we don't have the technology to do it safely now. It will never be satisfactorily safe with rockets. I was thinking more along the lines of space elevator. (Which is why I also essentially wrote that it would be impractical in the very next sentence).

But no matter what energy technology we resort to, there will always be some upper limit of production above which environmental effects will be detrimental. Take solar for example. The harvesting of solar energy puts humans in direct competition with plants. While at the moment there is plenty of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth to go around, if growth continues unabated there will come some point when this is no longer the case. (Not to mention the portion of solar energy that is responsible for driving climate cycles).

Controlling consumption and increasing efficiency are absolutely required for any long-term to permanent solution.

Slightly off-topic:

How does the BBC plan to force-feed Horizon to the president or presidential candidates (of the US or anywhere else!) when the BBC bods don't willingly allow iPlayer access outside the UK and do allow programme-purchasing countries, such as the US, to edit and dub over the soundtrack to remove anything which might offend the ignorant/religious sensibilities of the audience/rulers? Would the following Horizon prog end up being completely blanked out by the US censors (or be given a completely new fictional subject in a voice-over):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_two/2008-09-16

I'm fairly sure that nuclear power could be made *technologically* safe - reactors that can't melt down, control systems that are actually reliable, storage that is at least as safe as that places the material originally came from etc.
What I'm quite certain about is that the *business* of nuclear power is the truly dangerous thing. The business is run by people in corporations, with political control of some degree. Like any power system it is expensive to build and so a lot of money flows into the hands of greedy, unscrupulous people on both sides of the private/govt fence. Cheap concrete gets substituted. Sub-standard piping is welded by under trained welders and (non)inspected by untrained or paid-off inspectors. Violations of safety rules get covered up. Safety rules are created by a department run by a political appointee that went to school with the CEO of the builder.
Which is, as any fule kno, what happens *anywhere* there is a lot of money floating around.

For an example of an apparently safely run, long lasting nuclear reactor it might interest you to look at http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovelock-oklo.htm

Quiet Desperation @ #38

I stepped on a honey graham cracker the other night. Does that count?

Sorry, that would only count if you believe that the graham cracker transubstantiates into the physical body of a Keebler Elf.

Quiet Desperation @ #51

I always remember the one Natalie Wood drove in The Great Race.

"Up and at em Perfessor!"

"Up and at em!, Up and at em?"

"You up! You at em!"

I dont know If I can trust McCain if her VP doesnt understand Dinosaurs.

Ironically, I have only recently back away from my support of nuclear energy.

I have been arguing with friends and family members for the last two decades about the idea of building more nuclear power plants. I still am inclined to think of it as preferable to dependence on foreign oil.

However, I no longer believe that the U.S. government is capable of successfully managing a long-term, large-scale effort like building a new generation of nuclear power plants. I am inclined to believe that politicians would kill the effort before completion and waste all the money that was spent on it.

I think our options for alternative energy are limited to things that produce results quickly and can be pursued locally.

Kiddies, wot about a Thorium reactor? Much shorter 1/2 life of the waste and it can't go into a self-sustained chain reaction so is much safer and Australia has >1/4 the worlds known supplies! A win-win situation for all.

I was thinking more along the lines of space elevator. (Which is why I also essentially wrote that it would be impractical in the very next sentence).

Ehh? We've discovered Robotics already, as I'm pretty sure we've built Mechanized Infantry, and I KNOW we have Satellites, so we should be able to produce the Space Elevator Wonder in any city at less than 30 degrees latitude....

In other news, my sleep bar is nearly empty. I will soon have floating beds appearing above my head while I make plaintive gesticulations at the cruel uncaring being who drives me around my tasks until I collapse, or locks me in a room with many fireplaces and no bathrooms.

I hate that person. :-P

In other, OTHER news, I need a job to keep me from playing so many video games. Also, we need another 378 comments so I can go to bed. Chop chop, people!

*chops around with the warhammer Sunder*

Gotta get that Blunt skill up before attacking Dagoth Ur and destroying the Heart of Lokhan. Chop! Chop!

I'm with PZ...

Here is an exerpt from an AP article "McCain says Obama didn't call Palin a pig":

_________________

"McCain stood up for Palin at other times in the interview.

He was asked about nearly $200 million in congressional pet projects Palin requested for 2009 for her state, despite her boasts that she opposes such projects and his claim that she didn't ask for any. McCain responded by criticizing Obama for seeking more than $900 million in these earmarks, by one count.

"That's nearly a million every day, every working day he's been in Congress," McCain said. "And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn't be saying anything about Governor Palin."

Did he call her a pig?" McCain was asked. "No, but I know that he chooses his words carefully, and it was the wrong thing to say," he responded."

_________________

Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lipstick;_ylt=Aq…

In other words, what he basically said was, "I don't think he called her a pig, but he was wrong to call her a pig".

The man is a master of double-talk.

WHY shouldn't Obama say anything about Palin? Because she's a woman? Is that what he thinks "fairness" is about?

(Sorry PZ - I guess we can't ask Sarah about dinos after all. You see, it wouldn't be fair to the fairer-sex-half of the ticket).

But just wonderin', you know. How is it that Obama's record of earmark requests worth about $70/person in Illinois (Obama reportedly asked for about $900m in earmarks) are worse than about $290/person in Alaska (Palin asked for about $200m)?

Perhaps Alaskans are 4 times as special as Illinoisians?

He isn't "pro-science". He's not even science-literate. He may be able to perform simple arithmetic, but he doesn't think the public can...or will.

And why are planetaria "foolishness"? Doesn't he like astronomy? Doesn't he like the idea of educating the public about science or the universe they live in?

One places one's trust in whatever McCain says at one's peril. He has a forked-tongue that sticks out of each of his faces.

@ Natalie: Spread in aerosolized form and in spread radius is lower compared to various other fuel technologies -- due in part to its higher energy density allowing lower masses used.

@ Sven DIMIlo: I believe you are talking about U-235, and just because something is radioactive doesn't immediately make it dangerous. What you actually want to look at is the peak biologically important radioactivity levels, which occur in 3e5 years or so. Even then, it is going to be comparable to background/CMB induced radiation levels at moderate altitudes (say, Seattle).

@ Tulse: We are retiring the shuttle fleet and moving to something similar to the Saturn V, which had a much higher launch payload capacity. Besides, Yucca mountain is good enough as it is. Finally, on that point, we need to get breeders going which reduce the waste to something with a shorter half-life that is safer besides.

Nuclear is a safe long term solution that is too high in energy density to ignore. Solar will provide < 1kW m-2 (current maximum production is around 500 Wm-2); wind has its own ecological problems with birds and bats; dams obliterate ecosystems; and geothermal has been known to provide fault-line stresses. Those are all good short-term solutions, but nuclear is the only feasible long term solution (with fission transitioning to the 10x higher energy density fusion when the technology matures).

After all, there are only two things in nature more energy dense than nuclear power (chucking stuff into black holes and antimatter), and the first is not feasible on-planet and the second is problematic in production and in energy capture (stupid short-wavelength photons ... )

Heh, as the number of comments approaches 1 million, the proportion of all comments that either refer to the total number of comments approaches 1.

(OK, I don't really believe enough people here care about arbitrary milestones for that statement to be true, but it's funny in my head.)

PZ How Dare You! She is a woman so we can never ask her any questions, lest we be sexist pigs.

Heh.

I eventually went to bed, and when I woke up just now, we're 15 commments over. Le sigh...

(Although, as I read the contest details, they never actually SAY that it's going to the millionth comment. In fact, they have that whole no-purchase-necessary-send-SASE-to-enter thing, implying that ANY comment during the timeframe has a chance.)

Nick Gotts:

No form of energy generation developed or in prospect is problem-free.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to imply that coal or oil based power was problem free. It just seems to me that the environmental costs of nuclear power are less understood or misunderstood. That is, people focus on the possibility of a meltdown and really don't know anything about the problems with mining. I'm also hestitant to entrust anything else to the Bureau of Mines, considering that they operate like a 1920s political machine.

My admitted limited understanding of nuclear power is that the waste is solid, making it much less likely to go places where you don't want it to, after you put it somewhere

Much of it is water-soluble to some degree.

Remember, it has to be stored for tens of thousands of years before the radioactivity is down to background levels.

Kiddies, wot about a Thorium reactor? Much shorter 1/2 life of the waste and it can't go into a self-sustained chain reaction so is much safer and Australia has >1/4 the worlds known supplies! A win-win situation for all.

Sounds great, and there's sand in India that contains thorium oxide. Where can I learn more?

Ehh? We've discovered Robotics already, as I'm pretty sure we've built Mechanized Infantry, and I KNOW we have Satellites, so we should be able to produce the Space Elevator Wonder in any city at less than 30 degrees latitude....

ROTFL!!! Consider my day saved. :-D

Ugh... McCain's statements are full of mistakes. Take this section from his response to the "National Security" question:

We are benefiting today from technology that was invented for military use a quarter of a century ago (e.g. the Internet, email, GPS, Teflon).

email: Invented at MIT so users of their time-sharing computer system could communicate with each other.

Teflon: Invented on accident by someone who was trying to create a new refrigerant. Its original application was the first non-stick frying pan. It was later used to coat pipes in the reactors used to generate plutonium for the Manhattan Project.

Internet: Kinda sorta military. DARPA created the TCP/IP protocol for their own research purposes. But the funding to create a public internet came from the National Science Foundation.

At least he got GPS right.

From nethistory.info

This is why Ray Tomlinson is credited with inventing email in 1972. Like many of the Internet inventors, Tomlinson worked for Bolt Beranek and Newman as an ARPANET contractor. He picked the @ symbol from the computer keyboard to denote sending messages from one computer to another.

PTFE was used in the Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant long before its application to frying pans (in 1954). And the plant was used to enrich uranium, not manufacture plutonium.

You were saying about McCain?

I haven't followed this closely, but isn't there something in McCain s policy about moving money away from "wasteful research"?