Would you still support nuclear energy if it meant that a nuclear plant would be built right near your home?

Question

Would you sacrifice for the cause of fighting global warming by having one of these where YOU live? http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellyblue/2062143831/

Answer 1

I won't agree that is that near of residential areas otehrwise I will support it. I would rather have solar energy:

http://biotechtouch.blogspot.com/

Answer 2

no

Answer 3

Yes, I would, the U.S. has lagged far behind the rest of the world in nuclear power plants due to unreasonable hysteria created by the anti-nuke wackos. Not a single instance of death, deformity or significant contamination has occurred within the U.S. nuclear power industry. The U.S. Navy has been successfully operating nuclear powered ships since 1954. The Navy has NEVER had a single incident involving a nuclear power plant. For the naive that still cling to the fantasies of wind, solar and other "alternative" power generating methods I will just point you to California. The state of California is loaded with silly feel-good windmills and solar panels and other such boondoggles, so therefore electricity is dirt cheap and abundant, right? WRONG! Rolling blackouts and some of the highest utility prices in the country are the net result of allowing the politicians to dictate to the power industry. These silly "green" technologies are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all. Evil and greedy power companies would honestly love to be able to generate electricity without having to purchase coal or oil as it would dramatically increase their profit margins. But, they don't, so what does that tell you?

Answer 4

I would support it.

Answer 5

No, I support all kinds of natural power, like wind power sun power etc.

Answer 6

Remember Nuclear Fuel. The Uranium is very radioactive with an isotope of 232 and is not good for your health worst than green house gases remmber chernobyl tragedy at russia.

Answer 7

No!!!! i want wind power!!!

Answer 8

Yes...I would.  Wind and solar power are cute ideas but unable to power our economy.... unless we revert to the level of Zimbabwe.

Answer 9

I live 15 miles from a nuke plant. Not that big of a deal. Only thing that angers me(thinking of starting a protest) Is the fact the energy is sold to NJ, and NY.

       And there talking about raising the energy rates.

In the 70's they said lets build a plant for cheaper energy.

    They built the plant.. still paying national average.

          Seems safe and air is cleaner than coal or oil energy plant.

          Just make sure it is set in stone about cheaper energy.

Politicians like to lie.

Answer 10

Its like commiting suicude..  Nuc plants hav a high risk of leakage and any snag could result in a massive explosion,

If it is by the sea shore then its safe as sea has the top control.

Answer 11

I would protest (by sending a letter, not the 70s way) about it being close to residential area's, but I would support it as long as it was at a good enough distance away.

Answer 12

No I wouldn't either way its aggravating knowing that after the fuel rod is heated and no longer usable that it has to be cooled for 126 years to be sanitary I'd rather use the algie in california they found that produces electrons and doesnt effect the enviorment besides cali has enough Electric algie to power the united states for 100 + years

Answer 13

Yes, iti s very safe and effective.  I would prefer windmills, we just need to get off of oil.

Answer 14

Only If I were C M Burns...of course! what's wrong with it? that my friend, is pure art and a credit to our skills that separates us from lesser beings!  

Snapping back into reality...cultural development has allowed this to occur. Cultural change is now needed to prevent repetition.

Look at the houses...think all that space is being used? still, the sizes are probably justified by the size of the plasma TV (otherwise the room might look too small!), the a/c would be under-worked....Look at the cars - 3 of 6 are SUV's, but of course they are needed to get the kids to soccer practice! (I confess to being a little hypocritical here, but hey, at least I'm aware and have got the rest of my life to do someting about it)

A smarter bloke than I once told me there was more embodied enery in the nuclear proccess than energy output (consider mining, processing, storage & security of waste) - I tend to believe him....bring on research into renewables!

Answer 15

i hate it itd suck can i plz have best answer>?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  hope thats not happning with u the nuclear thing were u live thatd suck for u

Answer 16

I woudn't want any industrial developments near my home because it's bad for real estate prices.  I'd prefer people built upmarket housing to improve the area.  

I wouldn't be particularly concerned about radiation - I'd be more concerned about living near a noisy factory or one that made smoke.

Answer 17

It doesn't need to be in someone's backyard (there are many rural places available), but I certainly support it.  There's a navy base with nuclear reactors on ships very close to me already.

Nuclear power hasn't turned out to be the dangerous thing that people in the 70's feared.  It's safety record compares well to hydro (which has killed people through floods), coal (which kills people through mining), etc.

Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06....

Answer 18

Sure.

A question I like to ask people is;

Would you rather live 1 mile from a nuclear plant or 1 mile from a coal burning plant?

The chance that the nuclear plant would kill you is less than the chance you'll be run over by a car.  TODAY.

The coal burning plant would surely take YEARS off your life.

Answer 19

I will never support nuclear power, even if it were 10,000 kms away from me.

There are vast areas of unused desert out there, how about wind and solar farms.