6 Responses

1. Yes.

2. Yes…. If only usa do .
   No…….If anyone else do.

3. Yes, but we must address the waste disposal issue. McCain says throughout his campaign that this waste is safe, and yet he refuses to allow a nuclear plant to be built in his state of Arizona, or allow trucks driving nuclear waste to drive through Arizona. And as I just saw someone point out earlier, only 1.6% of our electrical energy supply comes from foreign oil. So building new plants won’t do much of anything to reduce our dependence on it.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sourc…

4. Clean?

   * NO!
   Until we can *determine ~
   WHERE TO PUT ALL
   THE NUCLEAR WASTE!
   (Nevada is Over-Flowing!)

5. Only if we figure out how and where to safely store the waste products, which we have not yet done.

6. NO.

   Thankfully, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for over 30 years. That means that a whole new generation of concerned citizens grew up without knowing the facts about nuclear power – or remembering the terrible disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. So it is time to remind everyone that nuclear is not the answer.

   Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn’t possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here’s why: Nuclear waste, Nuclear proliferation, National Security and Accidents. Don’t forget Cancer—nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements.

   Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.

   With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.