Nuclear Energy has many negative effects on the environment

[surfville10]

Nuclear Energy is being opposed my many countries due to its negative effect to the environment as well as to the people. But some countries are making use of this as source of energy despite of its known downfalls.

In your area, is nuclear energy being promoted or opposed? Will you agree in case that there is a proposed plan in building a nuclear plant near your place?

[vtte]

Nuclear power is risky business. When you build it, there are a lot of dangers involved, especially to areas with large populations. Nobody ever wants another Chernobyl, especially after the deadly effects. I would be against nuclear power unless we had no other choice/

[tekmiester]

Nuclear energy is the best alternative... With the proper safeguards in place it is very environmentally friendly (relatively speaking to other alternatives), and does not harm the atmosphere.

If the choice is between coal and nukes, nukes win hands down.

[BlueT]

Some people would say nuclear is dangerous and its hard to maintain nuclear. But nuclear power is bigger than the solar or wind power, and its cheaper too.

[rcf5005]

IN. IN IN IN. Theres a statistic floating around that one pellet (~5g) of UO2 is about the same as so many million tons of coal. Sure, dealing with the waste is not easy, but neither is dealing with the waste of burning millions of tons of coal. How can anybody possibly be opposed to this? Some of the same people who are saying we can't use fossil fuels to power the world are saying we can't use nuclear power either. So what is the world supposed to power itself with, hugs and smiles?

[John9]

Nuclear energy is actually environmentally friendly. The only disadvantage is you need a lot of money to start and it's hard to maintain. About the risk, as long as it's being maintained by the right people, it will be safe.

[Peter]

According to me Nuclear energy is better alternative as compared to other sources.
As it is one time investment only.But it makes a nation energy surplus.The only disadvantage is risk involved and secondly nuclear waste management.

[elite]

I am more towards the use of nuclear energy for reasons of cleanliness and economics though I am of course cogent of all the dangers of nuclear power and the possibility of nuclear disasters or meltdown. But the prospect of depending on oil and coal (which are high pollutants) are certainly not a viable option.

I guess we are in a position of between the deep blue sea and hard rock.

[nick08]

Well nuclear energy might be an alternative source of energy but do remember that it is a non-renewable source (one day or the other it will surely deplete) and can cause nuclear calamities & disasters. Nuclear power station are also very expensive and hard to maintain. So i would opt for other sources of energy[solar,wind,tidal energy] than using nuclear energy.

[ZackFaire]

I support nuclear energy. This is definitely an "IN" thing if we knew more about maintaining it.

The risks are huge but if we built capsules or something to secure it, nuclear energy will definitely be one of the most used energy sources ever.

[Right]

I am in full support of nuclear energy since it helps ease a burden on conventional resources.

Due to rapid growth in world economy, there is tremendous demand for the natural resources and it is aptly reflected in the sky-rocketing prices of the same.

In order to stabilize the prices and to lessen the sudden and quick depletion of this limited resources, it is high time governments world-over realized the importance of Nuclear Energy as an alternative to conventional sources of energy.

Regards,

Right

[Geminiamp]

Nuclear power should be out in my opinion. We should try to use more renewable sources of power first. Where I live we have huge windmill things that generate power as well as dams that use the water to give off power.

Nuclear is just not the way to go several years ago about 10 or so we closed the only nuclear plant that was close by in Washington.

[cena_john]

Nuclear energy is definitely in. According to scientists it is the least tapped source of energy which can aid in generation of huge amounts of power. A nuclear reaction generates tremendous amounts of energy, we need to find ways to control and tap it.

[shellerz]

Nuclear energy remains a controversial topic for many reasons such as its safety and of course the management of long term nuclear waste and its environmental impacts. The simple fact of the matter is however that other fuel such as oil are almost certain to run out within my lifetime and renewable energy sources such as wind power are yet to offer a complete solution to our needs. Nuclear power is therefore perhaps an unavoidable future for our cities.

[Ken]

I believe nuclear energy is our best option right now. What people don't realize is: every energy source has its downside. There is no magical way to produce lots of energy without repercussions or sacrifices. Hopefully, science can work to fix the issues caused by a switch to nuclear energy because the "purer" energy sources like wind and solar have a long way to go to be viable while fossil fuels just won't do anymore.

[Anchor]

I don't think that there are any alternatives other than nuclear energy , to produce electricity. All the resources for generating electricity are becoming extinct . So , I would like to say that Nuclear energy is IN .

[DaughterUK]

I'm in favour of nuclear energy. It will eliminate our dependence on fossil-fuels (of which our supply will eventually run out) and it isn't polluting as long as the power plants are properly maintained.

To the poster who mentioned Cherynobyl - I agree, nobody wants another incident like that. From what I read about it, somebody poured sand into the reactor when there was a problem, when in fact they should have used water. Water will absorb the radiation, sand reflected it back into the core and caused a catastrophic meltdown and rendered the whole area a biohazard which will not be inhabitable for centuries.

There has been many nuclear power plants and so far Cherynobyl is the only one where things went horribly wrong. That's the thing with any new technology, mistakes can and will occasionally happen. While it it regrettable and unfortunate, we cannot sacrifice progress on the alter of 'what if'. If we had done that, cars would never have been invented because petrol would have been seen as 'too dangerous'.

I believe that nuclear power will eventually fuel everything, whether directly (household electricity supply) or indirectly (charging cars with electricity generated from nuclear power plants).

[Jenelle]

The people here in my country didn't bite the idea of a nuclear power plant as our primary source of energy. I think it's fine, though. Thinking of all the negative effects it could cause.

[Fragile]

Some would say that nuclear is dangerous & hard to maintain it's nuclear weapons. But
nuclear power is larger than solar or wind power, & cheaper too.

[thegamevg]

Originally Posted by Fragile

Some would say that nuclear is dangerous & hard to maintain it's nuclear weapons. But
nuclear power is larger than solar or wind power, & cheaper too.

Nuclear power definitely contains a risk, but it is the only alternative for the future...fossil fuels are bound to run out...and nuclear power has the potential to carry energy needs for many years to come..
It would be better though, if solar energy could be harnessed on a large scale by homes and offices to at least meet part of the needs..

[AltMvz]

I agree. Nuclear energy is the best among all the rest. Dangerous but pollution wise way better. But Solar is good in those sunny cliamtes and wind power in those windy climates like me own.

[Cranky Bitch]

It's all hogwash and always will be as long as there is money involved.
Be it coal or nuclear or solar or cousin Jeremy's generator, someone, somewhere, is only interested in the final profit. Now what the hell would they do if all energy was declared free?
You can well bet ya they'd figure out cheaper alternatives! They would have wind turbines and solar panels on every building. Solar farms would be common, and even for the cloudy areas, safe forms of energy production could be manufactured.
But as long as the rulers of the energized world, the oil conglomerates, maintain control, we are not going to see swift advancements in the energy technologies. Not until every last drop of crude has been pumped and every dime possible squeezed out of our wallets.

CB

you need just a little amount of energy to produce large amounts of nuclear energy which implies energy would be very cheap and we could save huge amounts of money on energy. however, the by products of nuclear reactions are very difficult to control and if they pile up it could be the end of the world.

Nuclear Energy has many negative effects on the environment. It is dangerous as the nuclear energy in the nuclear plant has a lot of different kinds of chemicals. These chemicals are harmful as they can cause cancer if you breathe this contaminated air. It has a kind of reaction that will cause you to feel your body burning. Therefore, I would disagree in building a nuclear plant.

[world-love]

How ironic it is that throughout history we humans always destroy ourselves with our own inventions and innovations...

Our environment is at stake and our very lives. Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Japan again, and all the other countries in between who have been affected by nuclear explosions or radiation leaks, are losses too great to continue testing, setting off, and playing around with nuclear energy.

How many explosions, deaths, and disasters will it take for us to realize that sometimes the cons over weigh the pros?

nuclear energy isn't worth the money we shove into it it has so many side effects and what about the times someone screws up it isa huge disaster!!!!!!!