http://bellona.org/english_import_area/energy/nuclear/sellafield/37975
The world doesn't need this energy independence doesn't mean create radio active waste. We need alternative energy that is renewable and truely does not polute.
Here are the places in the us that are being looked at:
Oak Ridge, TN North Augusta, SC Joliet, IL Hobbs, NM Roswell, NM Los Alamos, NM Paducah, KY Piketon, OH Pasco, WA Idaho Falls, ID Washington, DC
Public comment is due before April 4, 2007. Make your voice heard.
If you would like to request any additional information please contact Mr. Timothy A. Frazier GNEP PEIS Document Manager, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0119, or via telephone: 866-645-7803, Fax: 866-645-7807, or by e-mail at GNEP-PEIS@nuclear.energy.gov. Additional information on GNEP may be found at www.gnep.energy.gov.
2007-03-05 17:07:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
you haven't thought this through have you?
nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly
2007-03-05 17:10:49 · answer #1 · answered by q6656303 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you want to send nuclear material outside the US (easier for some terrorists to get at it) for reprocessing?
Reprocessing is much preferred than initial processing where you know that everything is radioactive and you don't have to separate out minute levels of radioactivity prior to waste disposal.
Like several of the other folks that have responded: nuclear power is one of the cleanest most efficient means of electricity generation. Why build more fossil fuel/ozone depleting plants when we have nuclear power? Nuclear power is regulated a lot more than any other type of power (has the EPA and DOE and NRA looking over their shoulders daily).
So no, we should not try to stop them. We should make sure that they provide every cautionary method to protect us as citizens though, before they have any accidents.
2007-03-07 10:48:52 · answer #2 · answered by Aloha Jim 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Based on your command of the English language, poor spelling, poor grammar and so on... I give your argument no validity. Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest source of energy available. Solar power and wind power simply are not as efficient. The sad thing is that half witted wackos like you are probably the only ones that will actually speak out.
2007-03-05 17:33:56 · answer #3 · answered by sparkletina 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, exactly zero people have died from nuclear energy in the US. Let's see...Three Mile Island, zero dead, Brown's Ferry, zero dead-Chalk River, zero dead-I'm shaking in my shoes. Besides, nuclear energy is solar energy as all matter was created in the big bang in any case.
2007-03-05 17:14:11 · answer #4 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's funny that they call it 'reprocessing' where everyone else would call it 'burying it and hoping it goes away.'
Well, it would be funny if it weren't actually happening.
Oh, and nuclear nowhere near the cleanest energy. Efficient coal plants are far better for the environment than nuclear plants.
2007-03-05 17:27:27 · answer #5 · answered by tgypoi 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nuclear reprocessing tends to produce all manner of contamination. Yes, we should stop them.
2007-03-06 07:37:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes lets strip mine the entire US and depend on the middle east more for oil. That will solve everything.
Sorry, not my signature.
2007-03-05 18:06:37 · answer #7 · answered by oldster 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's going to be done somewhere. Would it be OK if it were to be done in a 3rd world country? That way we won't ruin the US??
2007-03-05 17:11:46 · answer #8 · answered by oshaberi27 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋