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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nuclear energy despite its risk is clean safe produces no air pollution or water pollution
and despite what enviro nazis like green peace say completly secure there have been no nuclear accidents since three mile island windscale or fukushima there are even ships powered by nuclear power even in russia
It is mostly fossil fuels ruining our environment right now and banning of nuclear energy would only increase co2 emissions. Governments should not wait for fossil fuels to run out and invest more on developing alternatives for both earth's sake and human lives lost in conflicts in oil rich countries (aka middle east) and most probable candidate to replace fossil fuel is nuclear energy. Renewable energy options also mess environment (hydro dams, wind farms etc.)
Modern nuclear power plants on average employ 1,400 people to 1,800 people. Do you really want to make those people, who are like yourselves, get thrown out of their jobs because of what we think is the worst environmental problem for cheap energy? Those people are like YOURSELVES. They need money, and it is good that nuclear power is inexpensive and is one of the most environmentally friendly sources of energy in this world.
Nuclear energy makes up for only one percent of our total radiation!!!! There's no way we should give up this useful, reliable source of energy. In fact, we get more radiation from the sun's ultraviolet rays, than from nuclear energy!!! I suggest that we have better security around our nuclear power plants. The United States would've known already from all these disasters!!! As the saying goes, "you can change something potentially dangerous into something that's good and useful." If we can just protect our power plants more, our future will be as delightful as sex! Additionally, it's cheap and useful. Why should we ban something that is this good? We should NEVER ban nuclear energy. :)
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.
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.
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!
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.