11 Responses

1. Both to some degree

2. a whole lot less of a danger than being dependent on foreign oil

3. both

4. well while being better for the environment there is of course still nuclear waste and it is a disaster that has already happened…. like 3 mile island and chernobyl which still are not safe to to i believe.

5. It’s anything but clean or safe. Until it’s figured out how to dispose of/store the nuclear waste safely, it’s definitely a disaster waiting to happen.

   And in the paranoid sphere, if they’re willing to fly into buildings, they’d be willing to fly into a nuclear power plant.

6. Both

7. Ok first of all NOTHING is safe. Just steping out your front door in the morning could be your undoing. Second, there are lots of very good things about Nuclear power, and some very signeficent risks. Now what you have to consider is that the power dose not pollute the air, meaning no greenhouse gasses. So it dosen’t kill animals and plants and stuff, that’s good. Nuclear is very efficent and cheaper then coal. While hydro and wind power is even cheaper they aren’t as efficent as Nuclear Power, nuclear power plants usually operate at a 90% effiecency ratio. Now with all that said, yeah there could be a meltdown and the people in that city and maybe around it could die and people around could get cancer and and and….bad things could happen. Now from what I know these power plants have good sercurity (in the US it has to be approved by the fedral government) and the radiation you get from living near the plant isn’t really that dangrous, you get radiation from the sun, rocks, water, trees, ect. everyday not to mention if you get an X-Ray or fly. So basicly, unless there’s a meltdown, which is highly unlikly, it’s safe and cheap, but it is a big risk.

8. Clearly a disaster already happening from an ecological standpoint. There is nothing “safe” about nuclear waste, we have no reliable means of safely storing or disposing of it.

9. I read an interesting article from one of the founders of greanpeace who eventually quit the organization because of their stand on nuclear energy. According to him, and I agree, we’ve gone so far with our demands for energy that there is no cleaner way, no alternative worth considering, other than properly managed nuclear energy. The coal, oil, and natural gas alternatives simply cause too much pollution, whether we use them efficiently or not. At least with nuclear we have the chance to buy ourselves some time.

10. It’s not clean. It’s not safe.

    There is only one way of disposing and that’s burying a lot of toxic material. (Idaho has a lot)

    It’s a disaster that will happen over and over again. We have reactors on most of our warships. If one is destroyed, it will pollute our oceans.

    Did I mention that phytoplankton makes 80% of our oxygen from co2? Destroy the ocean and man follows.

    ALL TRUE. Sorry for the truth, but you asked.

    (former nuclear engineer)

11. nuclear energy is very clean but ,the DST from producing plutonium is very, very bad,where we going to pouted,no state whens it because is very poisoned .and destroy the land of .Oslo is very danger ,if a problem is develop,it can hertz lot of people.