2007-05-30 04:59:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's interesting how many people assume I'm a global warming alarmist by asking this question... The truth is I'm MUCH MUCH more concerned about national security issues inherent with us being dependent on foreign oil than I am with global warming... But if we also clean up the air as a byproduct of becoming more secure, all the better!
2007-05-30 05:08:07 · update #1
I think it should be. It is the cleanest way to generate massive amounts of energy and it is much safer than other means. If you look at the actual death rates, coal power is far more dangerous than nuclear power. Hundreds of miners die every year (especially in China), whereas nuclear power is responsible for less than 60 deaths, all of which were do to Chernobyl. The only accident at an America nuclear power plant (Three mile Island), did not have a single casualty.
2007-05-30 05:09:07 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it's a possiblity that definitely is worth looking deeper into. but then so too is improved and more efficient hydroelectric and wind based manufacturing. the latter two likely to result in less opposition and environmental risk.
still though, IMO (which is hardly expert) it seems more logical to follow through on making these three safer and more efficient than to remain dependent on fossil fuels. further more if (and for a second let's assume it is) global warming is real it seems the mass burning of crops (i.e., ethanol) is only going to exacerbate that problem whereas the other three aren't likely to do so.
but at the heart of the issue is a need to ween politicians off of the kickbacks and contributions they get from oil companies (and yes i do mean on both sides of the aisle). until that is accomplished, there is little likelihood any alternative fuel source will draw real interest. after all, it's like they say....you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
2007-05-30 12:09:17 · answer #2 · answered by hork2004 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting you should ask that. I live by one of the only nuclear power plants that could survive being hit by an airplane... and it has been shut down due to a lot of fears about people getting out in time ind case of emergency..It was OK years Ok when built but the population here has gone up...
It is a very viable form of energy that should be looked into. the reason for the Russian accident was because they didn't have the proper upkeep of the power plants like we do here.
OH the power plant by me?? it was Seabrook..... now no longer in use.. I think we should explore all options that take away our dependence on overseas oil. MY hubby is using vegetable oil to run his diesel truck
2007-05-30 14:14:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For personal use, I would say no. For things such as power plants, it is an interesting idea.
Nuclear power is a reliable and powerful source of energy. As long as it is contained, I say go for it, seeing as otherwise, we let the nuclear material rot inside of old warheads.
All that needs to happen is that the workers need to always know what's going on, and that the proper safeguards are always in place.
2007-05-30 12:09:44 · answer #4 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should be looked at, certainly. I wonder though if the conservatives who criticize those who resist nuclear power remember 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl a few years later. Add to that the issue of what to do with the waste and you can see that there are legitimate concerns when it comes to expanding out nuclear power program.
2007-05-30 12:08:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The answers to this question will reveal a lot about the AGW crowd - - it's not about fossil fuels, it's about changing our lifestyles. They're no different than Pat Robertson. They think their lifestyle is better and that they have a right to impose it on everyone else, for humanity's sake.
2007-05-30 12:04:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nuclear power is a great solution for our power needs but it cuts out endless profits for the greedy whom are into the repeat process in making their millions/billions under this Fascist form of Capitalism! In case you haven't notice things that are great such as this are keep away from the general public.
2007-05-30 12:08:57 · answer #7 · answered by bulabate 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
A nuclear reactor put inside a car just screams bad idea. How awesome it would be when people wreck and rupture the reactor for their flesh to start melting off their bones. Yummy!
2007-05-30 12:04:05 · answer #8 · answered by CAUTION:Truth may hurt! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it`s clean and eliminates the middle eastern element.
2007-05-30 12:08:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
lol...lol....I can't get past your name....lol.
2007-05-30 12:03:09 · answer #10 · answered by Peace Maker 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋