This poll is about what you believe, not about the country as a whole believ. How about some courage of your convictions?I think it's irrelevant whether I favor nuclear power or not; after the last two days, the American people will never allow another nuclear power plant to be built anywhere near them ever again.
See also: After Tokyo 2011: It's the end of [nuclear power] as we know it
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.
This poll is about what you believe, not about the country as a whole believ. How about some courage of your convictions?
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.
I think it's irrelevant whether I favor nuclear power or not; after the last two days, the American people will never allow another nuclear power plant to be built anywhere near them ever again.
See also: After Tokyo 2011: It's the end of [nuclear power] as we know it
I think it's irrelevant whether I favor nuclear power or not; after the last two days, the American people will never allow another nuclear power plant to be built anywhere near them ever again.
See also: After Tokyo 2011: It's the end of [nuclear power] as we know it
I believe nuclear power is too dangerous to handle, so it should be phased out, but inevitable for the time being, so I am against an immediate stop:
I don't buy into the propaganda by energy companies nuclear plants are "safe". Accidents often take place. And while complete meltdowns à la Chernobyl or Fukushima may be seldom, the resulting damage is potentially way too big in case it happens after all. The company running the Fukushima plant in Japan has documented in the past years that they're not credible. So maybe a meltdown only takes place, statistically, once in 100 years -- but even that is way too much, IMHO.
On the other side, what's the alternative? More fossil fuels. They cause pollution too, and even if you don't believe in climate change due to CO2, you will acknowledge that pollution in general is not a good thing. On top of that, relying on fossil fuels increases dependence on not so nice regimes in not so nice countries.
So it's a choice between pestilence and cholera.
I'm all in favor of pushing and subsidizing regenerative and alternative energy sources, but they won't be able to meet the demand anytime soon. So for a while, we'll probably have to live with dirty energy sources. I'd say nuclear energy should be part of that too, to balance the problems with fossil fuels.
But long term goal should be a phase out.
I favor it, just don't build anything within 25 square miles of a plant. Then you don't have to worry as much about evac.
I favor it, just don't build anything within 25 square miles of a plant. Then you don't have to worry as much about evac.
What do you think of government regulations that would
1) require multiple redundancies in order to ensure safe operations and reduce catastrophic accidents happening from disasters and
2) an automatic penalty of death sentenced upon anyone who engages in any type of corruption regarding the building, operation, and investigation of a nuclear power plant?
While I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, I think these ideas are helpful minimizing the risks as long as we still have to rely on nuclear energy.
Still I am skeptic this would solve the problem entirely. Humans just make mistakes. A small risk will always remain. So the long term goal of a phase out is still preferable.
There are no stable areas in the U.S. or anywhere else.