A response to HumeSkeptic at huffingtonpost

I posted a comment on the following story and was called out by HumeSkeptic- the frequent, but incorrect poster on that site.

www.Huffingtonpost.com claims to believe in free speech, but spends a ton of time censoring people that post. I myself have been censored over 20 times that I am aware of, and not for inappropriate comments or profanity.

I tried to respond to his challenge that I could not find a single person who was in favor of Iran's nuclear pursuits, but against the U.S.'s pursuit of the same. I promised myself I would limit my response to about 15 minutes, but as I state in my 3 part response, there are likely many more people than what I found in just a few minutes. Unfortunately, I do not have the site's server to acccess and comments are limited to review of the most recent entries from posters.

Be that as it may, I did find a few people.

-----------------

Well, I wish I had time and the ability to cross reference everything anyone ever said on this site. Unfortunately, we don’t have that feature and our profiles do not show all that we have commented on. So, I promised myself I would dedicate only 15 minutes to the research you demanded. This will come in 3 parts, I hope they load in order.

Gr8abz, from this article

“I agree totally. Who the hell are we to tell Iran they cannot have a nuke? It's obnoxious and arrogant. I don't get it”

And then compare to . . .

“COMPANIES BEGIN QUEST FOR OIL AND GAS OFF FLORIDA COASTS
Hey, rwe. Where are they gonna dump all that radioactive waste from all those newly constructed nuke plants? NOBODY wants that crap in their farmland. And whose gonna pay for a Nuclear America anyway? Our tax dollars?? Nuclear energy is THE MOST EXPENSIVE to safeguard and maintain. rwe -- you are either uneducated a moron or both. posted 07/05/2008 at 11:41:08”

Sounds to me like he has valid points regarding the radioactive waste, but he seems perfectly ok with Iran producing some.

Part 2
Darthdarcy, from this article

“That's exactly what Bush and Cheney and our war monger Secretary of State want to hear...
There's gonna be War and before the election mark my words...”

I compared that to a comment I found on an article from June. I went through another profile on this article list to cross-reference, since darthdarcy’s profile only shows a certain number of “latest entries”.

Here it is . . .

McCain: Build 45 new Reactors, 6/18/08
“Nuclear plants built with bonds that the Tax Payer pays for..subsidizing the entire industry..Also no one ever mentions the huge dangerous pollution associated with mining the uranium and processing it for use in the Nuclear plants...everybody forgets about that so it's not a clean technology..then there's the waste..Einstein said you can't use Nuclear energy for power due to the waste, but hey what did Einstein know..?”

And . . .

“Google Harvey Wasserman his video, Nuclear Nonsense is great and America should see it...!Harvey Wasserman Nuclear Nonsense Google that...Also here's Harvey Wasserman at Counter Punch http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman02282007.htmlThen there's the article Wasserman wrote for Huffington post Jan. 5 2008...”

Not a great find, but I see darthdarcy arguing in favor of a policy that the Bush administration is against.

Part 3

JackND probably has it right, it is a NIMBY issue. Be that as it may, I am sure you will now spend your precious time trying to further mince what I have found, so I will debunk your response ahead of time. Nowhere do gr8abz and darthdarcy say they are for nuclear power in the U.S. if the issue of waste is resolved. In fact, they both specifically posted against the use of nuclear power.

If people actually spent time and analyzed the option, nuclear power is safe and the technology regarding waste is getting better. And to further prove my point since you like to throw around “straw man” accusations, I speak from a decent level of knowledge. My father in law worked on the decommission project of Unit 1, and his best friend and the man that married my wife and I is a lead engineer for So. Cal. Edison and still works at the plant. Libs love to talk about the advantages of solar, geothermal and wind power technology, and the improvements that have been made, so why cannot nuclear be considered?