More 'Fair and Balanced' news. Anyone care to debunk/comment?

[abrock]

John Kerry has been much lampooned for saying that he "actually voted for" funding U.S. troops in Iraq "before he voted against it."

He's in a another contradictory position when it comes to nuclear energy.

Kerry's Web site states that "nuclear power can play an essential role in providing affordable energy while reducing the risk of climate change." His aides also say he is for nuclear power.

So far, so good. But then on a recent campaign stop in Las Vegas — about 100 miles away from the planned Yucca Mountain (search) site for the long-term disposal of waste from nuclear power plants — Kerry said, "When I'm president of the United States, I'll tell you about Yucca Mountain: Not on my watch."

The realty of the matter, however, is that you can't be "for" nuclear energy (search) but "against" Yucca Mountain.

SNIP-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132653,00.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. I suppose you can't be for defeating terrorism

and against the war in Iraq, either.

[unfrigginreal]

2. Why can't you?

Hell, Bush was "against" Yucca Mountain in 2000 and pushed for it once he got into office. 'Splain that one...and drop a note to Fox once you come up with something good.

[abrock]

3. One thing I noticed from the article.

It made the requirements for Yucca Mountain seem "ludicrous" and "totally unacceptable", claiming that 10,000 years is far, far longer than the materials need to decompose.

I've got news for you Fox: Do your fucking research next time before you run with a 'flip flopper' story on something you know nothing about, beyond what you've read in "Rape the Planet Quarterly". Plutonium has a halflife of 24,000 years, meaning it would take around 240,000 for it to degenerate to safe levels.

[Career Prole]

4. The reality of the matter is that whenever you hear "the reality of the

matter" in a Faux story you won't be getting the reality of the matter.
If Faux says "The bottom line is...", it ain't.
If Faux tells you "The truth is..." change the friggin' channel at once.

There is nothing contradictory at all in seeing possibilities in nuclear power ("nuclear power can play an essential role")
and realistic about the problem of what to do with spent fuel.

Do think before saying "flip flop", 'kay? :eyes:

[Gman]

5. So much there I don't know wherer to start

to begin with, the section is called "junk science". Beware of anything from the RW called "junk science".


The rest goes downhill with no redeemable qualities whatsoever.

[BootinUp]

6. I like the way they slam activists

Without activists against nuclear waste we can be confident that the government would look out for peoples interests in this area right?

I don't believe nuclear power from fission reactors is THE answer to our energy problem. Kerry doesn't either. He said it plays a part, obviously. He favors more investment in alternative sources and research, more than the republicans. If Yucca mountain means that the nuclear plants will be allowed to significantly ramp up their production, is that a good thing? I am not so sure. Some compromise needs to be made to allow the reactors to run while we look for better sources of energy, but I'd favor keeping a lid on them.

[Kingshakabobo]

7. NEWS FLASH: Fox not fair and balanced!!!

why post this crap? It's a waste of your skin cells that wear off on the keys while typing it.