keep in mind nuclear is a much cleaner energy than coal and reduces a large amount of pollution.
2006-06-23 08:35:12 · 16 answers · asked by Allygadget 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Against.
They just blew up the old power plant near me (in Oregon), and that one was only running for, like, 20 years. I don't think we have a high demand for energy in this state, so I would be against, since it would be pointless.
We get our power from dams...the ONLY clean power. (Okay, wind too, but that doesn't count.)
2006-06-23 08:41:25 · answer #1 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely for a nuclear plant in my back yard. Nuclear is efficient. Nuclear is clean. The U.S. has many mandatory safeguards in place to prevent another Three Mile Island (near disaster), Davis Besse (near disaster), or Chernobyl (greatest disaster). Unlike the former Soviet block, the U.S. does not support graphite reactors. A Chernobyl cannot happen here.
So suck it up, Nevada. Whether you like it or not you will receive nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
And my property values would skyrocket making me an instant millionaire. Yep, statistically speaking property values in the immediate surrounding of a nuke plant are sky high!
2006-06-23 20:03:54 · answer #2 · answered by bow_wow_wow_yippieo_yippiea 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against
2006-06-23 15:38:03 · answer #3 · answered by Yeah thats me!! 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm against it no matter where it is. It is clean. It is efficient. It is the most dangerous force on earth and it requires flawed human beings to keep it under control.
Just one failure is all it takes to kill 1000's of people and devastate many future generations.
Take a close look at what happened in Chernobyl. It could happen here just as easily.
2006-06-23 15:42:45 · answer #4 · answered by irartist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government doesn't build nuclear power plants in the US--they were all built by private industry.
2006-06-23 15:38:50 · answer #5 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Keep in mind that nuclear wastes are highly radioactive and can remain dangerous for thousands of years. There are high risks and major accidents can occur, like what happened at Chernobyl. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl) High maintenance and security is needed.
2006-06-23 15:40:02 · answer #6 · answered by Cap'n Eridani 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As we use more and more fossil fuels, I don't think there will be much choice. It won't matter, ultimately, if you're for or against nuclear power. If your geographical area is not conducive to harnessing water, wind, or solar power, your choices will be nuclear power or no power.
2006-06-23 16:32:24 · answer #7 · answered by nardhelain 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, because I was once effected by the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster,although I lived couple of thosand kilometers away in Poland,all that stuff still traveled from Ukraine to us and there were many sicknesses and deformations.
2006-06-23 15:40:44 · answer #8 · answered by I-C-U 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against. It might be cleaner but radioactivity lasts for years and years and years. Where do you expect we put it all when we are done with it? Not a good idea in my opinion.
2006-06-23 16:12:11 · answer #9 · answered by BeC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have(Indian Point) and boy oh boy am I against it.It would be better guarded by pre schoolers.
2006-06-23 15:39:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋