Amazon.com Widgets

Should America continue its production in nuclear energy?

Asked by: rsather2015
  • This is needed for America to continue its technological growth. Also, it is another way of thinking "green" in our near future!

    The cons out way the pros to continuing on nuclear energy. Not only is this creating more pollution for our world, but if there is an accident, millions of lives would be negatively affected. Also, this could create tensions between more countries because it could make America become viewed as a specific target for surrounding areas.

  • Nuclear Energy Creates Jobs

    The United States should continue its production of nuclear energy because it creates jobs and a stable source of electricity. Nuclear energy is a green energy in that it doesn't have harmful carbon emissions like coal-fired plants. Nuclear energy is safer than coal because miners aren't dying in accidents because of lax safety standards.

  • Yes, it is modern.

    Yes, America should continue its production in nuclear energy, because nuclear energy is a good way to inexpensively produce a lot of energy. Nuclear energy is generally safe. Its impact on the environment is much less than other forms of energy. Even wind energy damages the birds and bugs in its natural habitat. Nuclear energy does not have these problems and should be pursued in the United States.

  • In Limited Ways

    I think nuclear energy has proved to be a valuable source of energy and is more environmentally friendly than some of our other options. With that said, if handled incorrectly, it can be far more dangerous. I believe it is important for us to continue production of nuclear energy, but at the same time seek out more and develop many options.

  • Yes it should.

    My brother-in-law is a nuclear engineer and I have learned quite a bit about this subject by talking to him. Nuclear energy is safe, as long as the plant is maintained properly. It is also better for the environment than fossil fuels are. It is fairly cheap and meltdowns are quite rare, so yes, America should continue to produce nuclear energy.

  • America should continue its production in nuclear energy.

    Although nuclear energy can be dangerous, there are no safe alternatives at the present time. Fossil fuels are a significant contributor to global warming and air pollution. Although altenative energy sources would be a panacea, they are not viable at this time. For the moment, nuclear power is an important source of power for our country.

  • Yes, but I can understand people's fear of it

    The cons of nuclear energy is this: God forbid an accident does happen, people within a nuclear area would die on the spot. Coal, oil and other elements are less dangerous.
    On the other hand nuclear energy, when in the right hands, is clean and less expensive than oil or coal.

  • Nuclear should continue, but only temporarily.

    America definitely needs to ease off the fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is extremely efficient compared to other sources of renewable energy. However, some risks are involved, such as radioactive waste and the possibility of a failure. Nuclear energy should now be used to replace fossil fuels, then be replaced as wind, solar, and other safer forms of renewable energy become more efficient.

  • Nuclear Is Efficent

    According to scienists it is the best alternative energy, it is more reliable than solar, wind, or water. Nuclear power plants also cut the cost of electricity in half. On safety concerns, the Atomic Energy Comission has improved safety regulations, and scientists are looking how to reuse harmful atomic waste.

  • If you're against nuclear energy, you're for oil, coal and gas.

    Nuclear energy needs to be explored more deeply and invested heavily. As it sits today, nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, and most efficient. "Green Energy" needs to be researched and developed, however as of today green energy is wasteful, inefficient, and expensive. If you want green energy nuclear is the only option today. Helium-3 would be a good source of nuclear energy, however it is not possible with the cancellation of the Constellation program.

  • Why do we need it?

    Nucular energy is dangerous in more ways than one. For one the waste of this type of energy is extremely radioactive and will not cool off for thousands of years, so as a result we have to store somewhere far away from civilization. However, this waste will still contaminate the ground water that makes up most of our drinking water. Even though we have learned how to properly contain the waste from nucular energy, there is always a chance for it to be destroyed by natural disaster or a man made catastrophe. Besides storing the radioactive waste involves treating it and then containing it for cooling, and all that is done by not only machines but also humans. Being around that much radiation is just not good for anyone. It has been proven that radiation is a cause of cancer, and too much is very dangerous.

    With all the health risks for not only man kind but also the environment, why would we continue to use such a dirty form of energy? Besides there are other far cleaner energy reasorces available. For example: solar energy which uses the heat of the sun and coverts it into useable energy. Or wind energy which uses wind energy to turn a turbine which creates energy. There is also water energy which is put into water sources and the running water turns the turbine creating energy. These forms of energy are not only renewable but also healthy for the environment and humanity. There is no waste from these types of energies and they are not eventually going to run out. These types of energies seems the most logical solution to a growing problem in health concerns and environmental problems. One tends to believe that going green would cost too much and would result in economic struggles in this nation, however the reality is the only thing keeping people alive is the earth. People are alive because of the perfect conditions of this planet. The only reason money exists is because we exist, but without earth we don't exist. We could find another planet to live on eventually, however how do we truely know if the habitants of said planet aren't dangerous or even if that planet has the same things this one does. One assumes they would breath oxygen, because after all we do, however plants don't need oxegen, they need carbon dioxide. Humanities best bet is to stop while ahead. Without this planet there is no way for people to exist with certainty of life, being environmentally cautious ensures humanities survival. Nucular energy could very well be the thing that brakes our existence. The tecnology that has been made, has made nucular energy void. There is no need for nucuar energy now that we have safer options. The abandonment of nucular energy is nesassary now that we know so much about how unclean it is. The truth is we can do without it.

  • Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power http://www.Psr.Org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.Html

    "The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. Taxpayers."

    This debate goes on ad nauseam in America, and apparently in the UK. One of America’s anti-nuclear energy champions is Ralph Nader who has been opposed, since the early 1970s.

    “Ralph Nader is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. “In 1974, Ralph Nader created his “Critical Mass” organization uniting many dozens of environmental groups, with UCS – Union of Concerned Scientists as its advisor on nuclear issues. The supposed failure of the ECCS –emergency [reactor] core cooling system attracted very wide media coverage and became the most powerful and effective tool in their battle against nuclear power.
    Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

    How many more Three Mile Island, Fukushima, or Chernobyl accidents need to happen before we all get smart.

    Nuclear energy is not the solution.

  • Oh hell no

    Nucular energey produses toxic wast that can killll you. Thats it. La ala a lalal a l al la lal al a lal l al al al la la lala all al ala lalalal alalal aa la la laa la lal a lal al al all al al a l a a al l

  • America should not continue its production in nuclear energy.

    America should not continue its production in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is expensive to operate and is very unhealthy for the environment. I think that there are new technologies that would be better for the environment and our health. Mining for the items needs for production of nuclear energy is also dangerous.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
abyteofbrain says2013-12-12T17:13:33.867
Yes and no. In central America, away from all fault lines, yes. Within a few hundred miles of the coast? No! Nuclear energy is very dangerous, even with the massive amounts of safety measures in place. There's a slim chance of a problem, but if there is one? By by to half of America.