Well, let the debate begin. Seems a bunch of liberals, myself not included, think that nuclear power needs to be scrapped because of the safety hazards. First of all, I am kind of curious why there seems to be a bunch of nuclear power plants on the san andreas fault line in California, but other than that, i guess the argument would be, do the hazards and dangers of nuclear power outweigh this nation's need for a cheaper energy supply?
Nuclear plants should not be built in earthquake zones. Other than that multiple containment domes should be in place that will contain even a complete meltdown of the core.
Yeah, they were just waiting for a reason to point at nuclear plants to say "See? I told you they were bad! NOO!!". They don't want to scrap it though, they just need justification to tax the hell out of it even more so they can start a new slush fund for them to go through like hogs at a slop trough. Meanwhile, we they'd just as soon have us living on rationed power because it's a mortal sin to produce power by any other means than wind and solar, which will not likely ever come close to making a dent in the demand. I'd ask them a flipped-around version of your question, which is: In lieu of what happened in Japan, what's worse, nuclear power or drilling for and producing more of our own oil? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trying to find new sources of energy, but you don't change over to another source before an adequate one is discovered. These idiots are already claiming that global warming is the cause of the quake. So fossil fuels caused the quake that caused the tsunami that caused the meltdown, heh? FWIW, I feel like we should be building nuke plants AND drilling for our own oil.
The navy uses nuclear power and how many ships have been sent to the bottom because the reactor melted down? Maybe the future of nuclear power should be multiple smaller reactors following the naval design. Use more smaller reactors instead of a large one. It appears that the navy has the nuclear power thing under control.
Not all environmentalists are against nuclear power. Many consider it to be more green than fossil fuels.
The Russians aren't exactly known for how careful they are about things... Your point is still valid, but I'm just saying...
The us navy uses pwr reactors. Pressurized water is used to cool the reactors. The russans used lead- bismuth pressurized cooling systems. Diffrent design used by the russans so the two can't be truly compared.
The question, for me anyway, is can we produce energy safely? I don't care if it's drilling, or nuclear, but what assurances do the American people have that this can be done without something drastic happening like in Japan. If we can do it, then drill baby drill, and nuke baby nuke. We have to get off the crack, which is foreign oil.
I don't care who you are or what you try to do in the name of safety, the Earth will win. We are microscopic in proportion to this planet, and nothing we do could protect against the perfect storm that hit Japan Friday. Nuke plants, for the most part, are safe. Drilling for oil, for the most part, is safe. There are exceptions for both, but nobody wants to acknowledge the amount of success we've had in producing energy from both methods, in comparison to the problems that have been had. They'd rather worry about what 'could' happen. Hmm, football is a sport that generated tons of money and entertainment. It's dangerous though, maybe we need to ban football until we can make it 100% safe for all who play it.
