Should nuclear power be banned globally? |
this is one of those few times when I am actually for the ban of something
Knowing people who was affected by Chernobyl disaster and being a relative to those people gives me a good idea of how unsafe the use of nuclear power is. The use of this energy can not always be managed properly by the humans. The energy that we're dealing with is so powerful, and so potentially harmful, it can't be compared to any other sources. Nuclear power plants are ticking time bombs, and you never know what will trigger them. It could be a human mistake, natural disasters, or other things that we may not always envision. So, yes, playing with so many lives is not smart, this energy is not worth people dying horrible deaths from radiation. Better invest money in the development of safe and alternative energy sources than investing in some senseless wars in the middle east and nuclear power. As far as global ban goes, I'm not sure how it can work, it wouldn't be a good idea, I think, for one body to tell the whole world what to do, but as far as discouraging the use of nuclear power everywhere, and letting people know just what harm it can do, that seems like a really good idea to me. I hope that someday, before it's too late, all countries will ban the use of nuclear power voluntarily, the reason I say voluntarily is because they need to realize themselves that there are better sources that are not nearly so dangerous. Forcing them by the un or something like that is not a good solution in my opinion.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear Power is uncontrollable and if one error is made it could have devastating long term and short term effects.
Fukushima is a perfect example of what can happen when things go wrong. It is endagering peoples lives and it is also endangering the Earth. I would rather not take such great risks where things could go severely wrong.
Posted by: spongebobBan Nuclear Power!
Nuclear Power should be banned globally because of all of the unnecessary high risks both to the environment surrounding the plants for miles, and the risks to humankind in that same area, and possibly even further. There is enough power to be extracted from our Sun, through Solar Power. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON THAT WE SHOULD RELY ON NUCLEAR POWER. Not only is it unnatural, but over the years, it has killed thousands of people. That is more than enough reason to ban it.
Posted by: AnonymousDo you want to be mutated and live in a polluted world ?
If a nuclear power plant exploded AGAIN then it will take over 40,000 years to go away, and the modern human has only lived in 10,000 years. It will take 4 times humans' lifetime to go all away and now almost whole Europe has suffered from Chernobyl, and many people also in other countries have died and have mutated by the radiation from Chernobyl. We don't want that to happen again, do we?
It is far more lethal than other industrial energy source, you make a little mistake and the power plant has radiated your continent and killed many people and polluted the worlds climate.
I still don't understand why we still have nuclear power plants, they should have been banned many years ago.Posted by: AnonymousI'm not generally so pessimistic but
I think that it never should have been created in the first place. Yes, it's advanced our technology, but at what cost? We have waste that we can do nothing with but can and bury it and hope it doesn't leak for generations (upon generations upon generations).
I wish that humanity as a whole would stop focusing on endless expansion. We're demolishing the very environment we live in through pollution, contamination, endless destruction of habitat. And we act like we'll never hit the bottom. But we can, and if we don't stop, we will. We have to find renewable sources of power that are viable and that can't be weaponized by something natural like an earthquake. We will always have earthquakes. We will not always have the chance to fix our mistakes, and we hardly do right now.
The pessimist in me says it's already too late, but I still believe (deep down) that we can at least reduce the harm that we've done. We can spare future generations the awful hazards that go with nuclear waste and nuclear accidents.Posted by: AnonymousThe recent earthquake in Japan and the subsequent damage to nuclear power plants is enough to argue for banning nuclear power globally.
What happened to innovation and ecological preservation? Utilizing the power of wind and sun is so easy it's a no-brainer. We have seen the devastation that can result to people and to the earth when these things malfunction or incur damage. Generations are affected by these kinds of mishaps as genetic abnormalities occur. Land is unusable. They are dangerous and a great target for terrorists.
Posted by: UtterDonRadiation sucks big time!
Being irradiated is not very healthy!
Do you want to glow in the dark??? Do you want to grow cancerous growths all over your body? No? Then you should probably be against nuclear power. Pretty sure we can come up with some way to generate power without potentially frying us all.Posted by: Anonymousnuclear power should be banned
Requiring sophisticated treatment and management to isolate the radioactive waste, nuclear power could be potentially extremely dangerous despite being less destructive to the natural habitat. The supply of uranium is limited and scarce. It is therefore a non-renewable energy source and nuclear energy should doubtlessly be banned globally. What if the cooling systems break down? What if there is a leakage of radioactive waste? We, the human-beings, really could dare not bear this disastrous consequence.
Posted by: Anonymousit can kill
Nuclear power should be banned because it’s extremely dangerous and could result in death. Furthermore, as it’s radioactive it must be sealed up and buried for thousands of years for its radioactivity to fade away. Serious accidents occur due to nuclear power have contact with peoples bodies. For example there was a major disaster in Fukushima’s nuclear power plant, where roughly 57 workers died and 4000 local people died from cancer from the radiation. Think how many lives could have been saved if nuclear power was band. Also the radiation can contaminate water affecting the people and the in environment, with all the animals living in or by it.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, I agree that it should be banned globally, because it is unsafe.
I think that nuclear energy should be banned globally, because it is deadly to the environment and, in the event of a terrorist attack, it could wipe out an entire region. The environmental consequences would destroy waterways, ecosystems, and animal habitats, throughout the country, and around the world. Congress should pass more legislation regarding this.
Posted by: BoundlessHomer49Radiation is dangerous.
It is dangerous. For example, in Chernobyl there is a red forest because of radiation. Do you still want it? I don't think its safer than the others when it can spread to a whole continent. Also, because of radiation, people and animals can become mutated. I say no to nuclear power and agree that it should be banned globally.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, save the lives of our descendants.
Nuclear accidents are unavoidable in the long term. The result is people dying from radiation poisoning for thousands of years. Is human life not worth infinitely more than the phony "convenience" of this killing technology? Think of the Chernobyl and Fukushima dead and multiply that by any large number that is rationally appropriate.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power might mean a victory for a country, but it is a loss for the whole world.
What affects one nation affects the whole world, especially when talking about nuclear power. All these nuclear leaks have lead to disasters and because of the bombing in Japan during world war ii, everyone on the globe born after that has trace amounts of this stuff in them. There are alternatives for this.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is too dangerous to play around.
Unless they can make nuclear plants with no radiation leaks and with no chances of a meltdown then I would rather see them banned. Companies and governments are too cheap to invest in good backups for cases of solar flares or other natural disasters like a tsunami ruining the grid and resulting in nuclear Plants not being able to use their cooling systems to stop a meltdown (Fukushima).
Posted by: AnonymousYes because it is unsafe.
It would mean cheap energy and easy heat but it could have the potential for destroying a country. I mean just look at what happened in Fukishima and Chernobyl. Do you want the terror and devastation to happen close to your own homes? I thought not. I like where I live and don't want it ruined by a nuclear accident. Even if it is cheap easy energy Its not safe.
Posted by: AnonymousIt impacts our environment.
Even if accidents don't happen, pipes from the plant may leak radioactive elements into a water body killing marine animals, and the water might be drinking water just contaminated. If any accidents happen, then radiation would leak far away killing species and causing people to evacuate their towns. These are some ways that this can impact our environment.
Posted by: Anonymousit should be banned
Nuclear energy is bad because it poses a major danger to the environment and to humanity. The production of nuclear power comes with by the production of radioactivity which can be very dangerous to living creatures. In addition to nuclear power disasters, there is also the crisis of nuclear waste, which can lead to health problems.
Posted by: AnonymousPredicted End
it only takes one thing to go wrong for us to all die. not necessarily get rid of it completely but put a limitation on it. its uncontrollable in the first place why create bombs from it. these weapons could and more than likely will be the end of us.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely, nuclear power should be banned.
Requiring sophisticated treatment and management to isolate the radioactive waste, nuclear power could be potentially extremely dangerous despite being less destructive to the natural habitat. The supply of uranium is limited and scarce. It is therefore a non-renewable energy source and nuclear energy should doubtlessly be banned globally. What if the cooling systems break down? What if there is a leakage of radioactive waste? We, the human-beings, really could dare not bear this disastrous consequence.
Posted by: Anonymous
What is the point?
What is the point of banning a cheap, reliable, nature friendly source of energy? Isn't it nuclear energy that makes up 11% of the energy we use today? Without it those 11% could be made up of polluting and even more dangerous energy resources. It gives 3.7 million times more energy than coal from the same amount of supplier. It produces much less waste than other energy sources and even the waste can be sold and used efficiently.
Posted by: AnonymeEfficiency
Nuclear power is a clean, safe (if created correctly and protected), and most importantly effective way to create energy. Why would we ban such a useful source of renewable energy? I think it folly that we even deter improvements to what we already have. I also agree that a ban is impractical and dangerous to attempt seriously. but weapons on the other hand.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
Nuclear power is actually one the sources of power that can completely replace fossil fuel. The only problem I see is that we need a way to safely neutralized the leftover from the nuclear reactors or else it will become another major crisis.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear energy today is safe, cheap, and clean.
Nuclear power plants are very safe when properly located and constructed. Nuclear reactors designed and built today are the safest ever, and can withstand all types of natural disasters, even earthquakes, and can operate safely even when operators make a mistake. There are over four hundred nuclear reactors operating in the world today, and they account for almost 15% of our total energy output. Banning nuclear power would have immediate and serious economic and social consequences. Besides nuclear energy, there are no viable energy alternatives to oil and gas at this time. Wind turbines and solar panels cannot produce even a fraction of the energy needed to power our planet, even if every home was covered in solar panels, and every hill was dotted with turbines. And other sources, like geothermal hot springs, are not available in many countries. Oil and gas are expensive, and finite. As we deplete oil and gas reserves, the price of each will steadily increase. Nuclear energy offers poor and developing countries access to cheap energy that doesn't release polluting gases, allowing them to grow their economies quickly, without smog and other health dangers. And rich countries benefit too, by relying less on oil and paying less for their energy. Properly engineered and managed, nuclear energy is safe, clean, and cheap. Alarmist groups, although well-meaning, should not use scare tactics and inaccurate information to get us to boycott this vital energy source.
Posted by: AnonymousToo good to say no
Nuclear Energy is bad. That's the truth. It creates toxins and all the other bad things. But nuclear power plants produce a lot of energy. 1 gram of matter is equal to enough energy to power a light bulb for 150,000 years. And nuclear power is 20,000 more efficient then coal. That's too good to say no. Even though many countries ban nuclear energy, it still takes up 6% of how we get power. France it self uses 75% nuclear energy.
Posted by: IamsomeoneWhy should we?
Nuclear power is a clean, safe (if created correctly and protected), and most importantly effective way to create energy. Why would we ban such a useful source of renewable energy? I think it folly that we even deter improvements to what we already have. I also agree that a ban is impractical and dangerous to attempt seriously. But weapons on the other hand.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power is the safest way to generate power.
The key to nuclear power’s safety is that it uses a radioactive energy source-such as uranium. In addition to having the advantage of storing millions of times more energy per unit of volume than coal, gas, or water, the radioactive material used in power plants literally cannot explode. An explosive nuclear chain reaction is no more feasible in the type of uranium used as power plant fuel than it is in chewing gum or pickled cucumbers. How many people do you think died at Fukuskima? 100? 200? Try zero. While many, many things went wrong at Fukushima, as might be expected in an unprecedented natural disaster, what is more remarkable is that thanks to the fundamental integrity of the nuclear vessel and the containment building, none of the power plant’s neighbors have died, nor have any apparently been exposed to harmful levels of radiation. (The Japanese government has announced that eight of 2,400 workers have been exposed to higher-than-allowed amounts of radiation, but these amounts are often hundreds of times less than is necessary to do actual damage.)
Posted by: crazyflakes11Nuclear power, the most useful and cheapest power .
Some of the countries depend on nuclear power to develop their economy .if nuclear power was banned ,what energy can these countries use .if the countries use nuclear power to get energy, it shows that the countries don't have any natural resource. Furthermore, nuclear power is the cheapest and useful energy, it can provide a lot of energy! It is just like killing two birds with one stone. The advantages of the nuclear power is beyond compute .if you want to ban it directly and globally because of the dangers it has, it is beyond all reasons and unthinkable!
Posted by: AnonymousNukes be da Bomb
Nuclear power is the future of the world. Fossil fuels are running out, so nuclear power is the next best thing. With the leaps in safety and fusion theory means that it will be a safer choice than the dwindling amounts of fossil fuels and inefficient eco-energy. Anyway, no european country is stupid enough to commit the tragedy of the Chernobyl. The only people that we should scared of with nukes is the Americans, because they are power-hungry greedy scum who will destroy countries and cultures in their pursuit of world dominance!
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power is not always bad.
Don't you realise and aware that coal and oil will no longer be counted as the main source of electricity power? Therefore, we need the alternative, and nuclear power is the answer. Nuclear power is used to generate the electricity which is relatively unexpensive, safe and doesn't pollute the environment if we perform in a right procedural and protect it throughout all aspects.
Beside that, nowadays, in medical fields, Nuclear medicine is the branch of medicine that uses open-source radiation, comes from the disintegration of the nucleus of artificial radionuclides, to study the anatomy physiology and biochemistry, so it can be used for diagnostic, therapeutic and medical research.
So, the point is nuclear power can not be determined as the source of disaster or bring more harm than good.Posted by: gracedatutaLack of knowledge
Those who oppose nuclear power simply do not understand how nuclear power works. Nuclear power is one the of the safest forms of energy known to man. Fukushima and Chernobyl are examples of what happens to old, obsolete plants that only failed because of extreme circumstances that will most likely never happen again. Hundreds, if not thousands die because of coal and oil mining/drilling a year and how many have died because of nuclear? A couple of hundred in its 50 year life time. Only the ill educated oppose nuclear power.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power is a necessity for a growing world and being green.
Fukishima was built NEAR A FAULT LINE. It also was very old and didn't have the appropriate safety measures, not to mention it was not meant to withstand a 9.0 earthquake. More people died from the Tsunami and Earthquake than the power plant. Chernobyl is also not a good argument because the Russians had a horribly built reactor. They had no safeguards and the operators didn't know how to use it which was an equation that equaled disaster. You would never see a disaster like this happen in the U.S. Further more Solar and wind barley produce even enough electricity to power our current demands and no new more efficient, and cheaper technologies of Solar or wind have been made in decades. Nuclear with ever generation is getting cheaper, more efficient and safer. Also if Nuclear powerplants are vulnerable to terrorists attacks? (which they aren't because barley any reactors produce weapons grade waste anymore and they have a several foot thick concrete dome protecting the reactor and 5 sets of safeguards in place). We might as well not build anymore sky scrapers, giant sports stadiums, hell we might as well not use public transportation because those are vulnerable to terrorist attacks also. The simple reality is if the world wants to go green and produce electricity for a growing world nuclear is the clear future and anyone with a brain can figure that out.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear Power isn't that expensive and Nuclear power doesn't pollute the atmosphere and is also very efficient
Nuclear Power costs about the same as coal so it isn't all that expensive. Nuclear Power doesn't produce Carbon Dioxide or smoke so it doesn't contribute from the greenhouse effect. Its also very efficient - it produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of Uranium. It also produces very small amounts of radioactive waste. For those of you who want to debate about what should we do about radioactive waste. we should send out into space.
Posted by: AnonymousA global ban in not possible, and any attempt will be dangerous
It will be impossible to impose a global ban in nuclear energy. Which Autority will impose it? And how will it be enforced? Even if tried it will be another useless document produced by overpaid bureaucrats. But if done, there will always be countries which will use it, probably with less regulations, because the fearful and weak Wesern governments will pull out and not be able to have their say. Responsible use of any form of energy, including nuclear, is the answer. A ban is as good as closing the eyes to avoid seeing the danger.
Posted by: AnonymousIt isn't dangerous.
It is regulated and maintained well. The only real problem is the storage of the nuclear waste. There are also other alternatives to conventional uranium or plutonium based reactors. One of the more promising alternatives are the thorium reactors. These reactors are both safe to operate and easy to get rid of the waste.
Posted by: Anonymous