English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071208/sc_nm/cancer_germany_dc

2007-12-08 14:26:49 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

I do not support nuclear power. I am for wind, solar, and hydro power.

Nature has provided us all the things we need yet CEOs feel they can make more money on things that kill off the planet.

2007-12-08 14:33:45 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2 2

The solution is to keep people clear of the fallout radius. It's not like we can't stick power plants in unpopulated areas. I don't think people really consider how our current energy production affects everyone. The burning of coal and petroleum for energy releases MANY harmful substances into the air which creates not only damage to our environment, but to our health as well. I think that nuclear power is a safer alternative because the government would obviously have standards that all nuclear power plants would have to stand up to in order to operate.

2007-12-08 14:29:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Nuclear power is only the answer if you're an idiot. Independent Renewable Energy Production Systems. Theres the REAL answer as well as the future. Of course i fear its realization will not be be fully appreciated until after some type of major war breaks out mainly due to greed and ignorance. We are very close to that actually occurring now. Closer than we have ever been. Temporary patches pertaining to energy problems should no longer be tolerated. Think independence.

2007-12-08 14:43:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

nuclear power is actually safer and healthier than burning coal which is what we use now, so if you really want your future generations to have a healthy life, maybe we should stop using combustible materials as a power source. The only problem with nuclear power is what to do with the waste, but we really should be looking into hydrogen power

2007-12-08 14:30:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Nuclear power is not the answer. The expense and energy cost in building a nuclear power plant exeeds the energy output over its useful life. This was the conclusion of a very lengthy analysis in "Scientific American" about 30 years ago. Perhaps this is why there have been no new applications for nuclear power plant permits in at least 25 years (with the exception of one just recently).

Nuclear energy is not the solution.

2007-12-08 14:31:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Nuclear power is NOT the solution, it is filthy and dangerous, and a great target for terrorists. We should all fight against any further nuclear power plants going up in this country or anywhere really. Why use it when we have solar, wind, etc. I don't get why humans have to be such filthy beasts.

2007-12-08 14:35:45 · answer #6 · answered by margie k 7 · 1 2

-nonsense, coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear plants.

-the earth does not have a supply of plutonium - Pu is not considered a naturally occurring element - most isotopes are synthetic

-there is enough nuclear fuel to last several hundred years with recycling.

2007-12-08 14:32:55 · answer #7 · answered by PD 6 · 1 0

Nuclear powered stations (from their birth - too their decomissing\)create 3/4's of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as the equivilant coal power station.

2007-12-08 14:31:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

When handled correctly nuclear power can be very safe. But, then again when has our government ever done things correctly?

2007-12-08 15:59:36 · answer #9 · answered by Barbiq 6 · 0 0

To answer your question;

Nuclear power is good for the French, and Iran (according to the left) its good enough for the US of A.

2007-12-08 14:31:00 · answer #10 · answered by T-Bone 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers