What do you think about nuclear power is it good for the enviroment or bad?

Answer 1

Well, let me answer with parable.

Once there were two brothers, each with a farm. One raised chickens, the other raised nuclear waste. Both grew zucchini.

The first brother would take the chicken droppings and fertilize the zucchini plants with them. His zucchini grew to great size, and always won first prize at the county fair.

The second brother sprayed nuclear waste on his plants. His zucchini grew to prodigious size, and was much sought after at market.

After a time, people began to notice that those that had been eating the chicken-fertilized zucchini voted Democrat, while the nuclearized chicken eaters leaned Republican.

Confusing cause with effect, the politicians clamored to say what they were sure their supporters wanted to hear.

Which is why we have chickensh*t politics at the nuclear level.

Answer 2

I suggest you read the article in the August 6th edition of FORTUNE Magazine, "America's Nuke Revival". Excellent article covers both sides of this issue. My personal take? The "No Nukes" protestors of the 1970's and 1980's were rather short-sighted. Nuclear Power still has risks but with proper controls it is considerably cleaner and safer than fossil fuels and it is sustainable.

Consider this statement from Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace who left the organization because he believed "their overzealousness caused them to ignore the truth".

Moore claimed that the dangers of nuclear power "are overstated. Chernobyl was the only accident that caused death and injury and that style of Soviet reactor should never have been built. Of course, there are risks with all technologies, but nuclear is one of the safest. Many of the other Chernobyl-style reactors are still operating, after they were refit so that a Chernobyl type accident could not occur again. We learn from our mistakes."

Consider our worst domestic nuclear accident - 3 Mile Island. No one was killed .. no one was injured .. and there was no long term environmental damage (unlike fossil fuels which has caused considerable environmental damage).

Should we count on Nuclear Power for all of our energy needs? Hardly. But we would be doing the environment a great service if we raised the total percentage of our electrical needs provided by nuclear power from the current 21%.

Answer 3

nuclear power is a clean source of energy in the sense that it makes no pollution in the moment of use......it increases production ....provides great energy.....but the disaster is in the waste products of nuclear stations...they burry them deep in the ground saying that's safe we close the packets good and no leak but who knows..they burry the nuclear trash in the 3rd world where no one is aware....also sometimes can happen a technical error in the nuclear station and then it's an environmental catastrophe..as in chernopel.and the other new leakege.....i don't remeber where...it destroys the environment....many people get strange diseases.....kills the creatures wether fishes in lakes...plants..people...it's simply devastating...it's positive sides is nothing compared to its negative sides....personally i prefer solar energy

Answer 4

having power is good but getting it from a nuclear power plant is not the best way to get power

Answer 5

If we keep depending on nuclear powered energy, we may not have an environment left to protect.

Answer 6

It is less damaging then fossil fuels, but it is far from good for the environment.

Answer 7

It was very bad in Chernobyl. I'd rather not sit on a powder keg.

Answer 8

short term good, long term disastrous.