Are people's fears concerneing nuclear power justified?

Answer 1

The US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors on subs and carriers for 50 years now and NOBODY has been injured or killed. So if operating procedures are rigidly run by the book there is no reason for the general public to fear them..

Just think....supposedly 70 million tons of greenhouse gases are being dumped into the atmosphere EVERY DAY. Yet the total accumulated tonnage of nuclear waste over 50 years that needs to be stored inside some dumb mountain is a mere 50,000 tons. Yet in generating all of that power over 50 years there was no inherent release of any pollutants other than some heat in discharge waters.

Answer 2

Yes and no, I think the safe guards in place are adequate to contain most nuclear accidents, however there is always a potential to cause harm if some of it was to escape. The possibility of this is very small, I think. The problem is nuclear waste, nobody wants it in their back yard. It is probably more dangerous then the actual generation of energy by nuclear power. I think that adding up all the potential problems and the advantages it would be conducive to go ahead and build plants to take over from the fossil fuel plants. Because they are a major cause of global warming, and are a danger in their own right.

Answer 3

The truth is that nuclear power can be both safe and dangerous at the same time. When operated as designed nuclear power plants can be operated with no threat to anyone. They can also be operated to produce weapons grade plutonium, the most deadly element on the planet.

Peoples fears are often based on the fear of the unknown. Fear of the unknown is not necessarily justified by facts, but it is part of what makes us human.

Answer 4

Concerning nuclear weapons power, yes.

Concerning nuclear power generation? People are going to have to decide what is the most appropriate source for generating electricity that will provide enough power for the nation and get rid or our dependency on foreign oil. I believe that a diversified approach is best. Lets face it, hydro power may not be possible in some areas and others like coal fired power plants may not be practical in other locations. All of the methods of generating power have drawbacks, unfortunately nuclear generation has probably the most serious and wide ranging. And until people can come to terms with it, it will always be the last choice.

Answer 5

The risks of nuclear energy have greatly diminished. But on a scale large enough for the whole U.S.of A. we still have the problem of waste. Even using a method similar to what France uses we would still accumulate a large amount of nuclear waste. This waste must be contained and with earthquakes and other security risks such as transporting the waste it still presents problems.

If it was a workable system we would have reactors every where. I am afraid that there are things to do with it that we are still not told.

Answer 6

No. There is nothing to fear. The materials used in a power plant can be used for weapons, but security is so tight in those places, a sandfly wouldn't even be able to sneak in. As for nuclear war, are we still in the fifties or not. The cold war is over, quit being paranoid. The commies aren't gonna nuke ya.

Answer 7

France gets 80% of its electricity from Nukes.

France must think that Libs in the U.S. are freaking morons to be afraid of nuclear power.

Answer 8

Sure, a nuclear war would seriously affect the environment of the entire planet, and would eventually kill everyone.

Answer 9

As far as power generation goes, they say it is safe. But why are there evacuation route signs all around nuke plants. In my home town, they have been talking about giving out Iodine pills to the local residents. I wonder why the government needs to subsidize insurance for nuke plants.

Hmmmmm?

Answer 10

If they were, France wouldn't be still building and using them.