Do you support the U.S. government's decision to encourage the manufacture of new nuclear plants?
2007-01-15 15:35:44 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We should never have backed off in the first place.
2007-01-15 15:41:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, lets put it this way. Since our oil reserves are not going to last forever, and since the majority of the US citizens are making fun of this administration for our dependence on foreign oil, and for saying that's we're in Iraq for their oil only, I would say this is a good idea, yes. Unless everyone wants to return to buring coal?
You can also burn corn liquor, but not every state has that advantage. :>)
So the only other way to do this is nuclear power to generate electricity. Even the coal isn't going to last forever. Besides all these coal mines a weakening and collapsing and men are being killed in the mines. When people discuss war, we could say that many others have died in service to their country and that's the coalminers. They risk their lives every single day to extract coal from the mines, but does anyone even talk about them?
I don't have family in the mines, nor am I, but those people usually end up with lung disease of some sort, even with the masks. It's a dirty, filthy job and they are not financially compensated enough as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not denouncing our military...I have family there in Iraq and I dearly love them, but we also have to take time to think of others who serve us in different ways, as well.
Sure, we could switch to wind power, but do you have any clue how horribly noisey a 'wind farm' is? They have one where my sister lives and she told me when they drive by there, the humming will knock your socks off.
So I say...yeah, get the men out of the mines and build the n.p. plants.
2007-01-15 23:54:43 · answer #2 · answered by chole_24 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think i speak for everyone when i say this, but there are hundreds of other ways to produce energy. Nuclear energy is efficient, but it works no diffrently than steam engines do, and they produce a waste that can take a century to degrade and decactivate its gamma activity. The thing is, since the goverment can save more money by having the nuclear powerplants, then they will not be taking them away anytime soon. Its all about the money.
2007-01-15 23:44:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. I would support the same amount of money being invested in renewable energy research.
Yes, nuclear power is efficient and easy to produce. Unfortunately, along with it being incredibly dangerous (remember Chernobyl?), the byproduct of this production is radioactive waste, for which they have no good plan for storage.
It can't just be disposed of. While low-level waste will decay to safe levels in 50 years, the high-level waste can take up to 100,000 years (yes, that's 100,000) to decay.
So until the safety and storage issues are resolved, it's just too dangerous.
2007-01-15 23:49:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not at all!
US's policies of appeasement has led to several countries get going for Nuclear race!
So US should stop this non-sense and try to build up the things that they have broken!
2007-01-15 23:40:43 · answer #5 · answered by Engineering Mayhem 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if they are in Iran.
2007-01-15 23:41:02 · answer #6 · answered by Perry L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure we need the power do we not?
2007-01-15 23:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋