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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It contaminates everything. Nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing that spews plutonium and uranium contaminated waste into the ocean from off shore pipes. Blokes in the industry that care about their own jobs more than childhood cancers that their industry causes. The contamination cant be undone. The suporters were happy to throw high level waste in 44 gallon drums in the ocean in bulk even in as little as 100 meters of water 50 miles off coastal areas. Properly running nuclear power plants release high level radioactive gas to the atmosphere. The iaea dont even care about the planet being contaminated. I thought the russians and usa were bad. At least the usa were smart and banned reprocessing and left it up to the stupid french and uk to do. Proponents of the nuclear industry should be shot. The proponents of nuclear say jobs? Stuff nuclear jobs. Deaths of adult humans by oil and gas? What about poisoning of the environment for up to forever with plutonium and uranium. There are way too many humans. We are a plague that needs to be controlled. Think of the animals and nature. They need to be protected.
Although the arguments in favor focus on the possibilities of disasters and that they can be prevented they are missing the key problem. When nuclear fission occurs waste isotopes are produced. These can have half lives of a few MILLION years. When nuclear energy is called a short term solution while effective renewables are developed you can't be further from the truth. Use nuclear energy today and create even more waste for our desendants millenia in the future.
Throughout nuclear power history, mankind has shown that they are not able to control, sustain and help the environment positively or at all. Chernobyl, was our first disaster, followed by Fukushima along with those two disasters, we still have no idea on how to deal with nuclear waste. Fukushima had leaks in their storage bins and then decided to burry it in the ground but it will over time leak from those containers.... Ban!! Nuclear plants, ban nuclear period!
Nuclear plants put radioactive substances into the air regularly, even when operating properly. Part of their operation is to vent nuclear gases on a regular basis. The reason nuclear energy was even used was to bomb a nation in WW2. Ridiculous, after such distruction, and misery to so many people in Japan, it should have been banned thereafter. Now we have had 5 nuclear reactors meltdown: three mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima... The largest ocean in the world is being destroyed by radioactive poisons from runoff of groundwater contaminated by the water used to cool the damaged reactors. Too much risk... Nuclear power is not cheap!! That is a fallacy. It does provide big profit margins for investors in this deadly form of power. ENOUGH!!!!! BAN ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE WORLD, AND FREE FUTURE GENERATIONS FROM THE HORRORS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY!!!!!!!
Let's just build build build.. Cheap 'nature friendly' my @ss
We can't get rid of the waste. We keep saying that in the future we'll have a way, but after 50+ years of f@cking with both the power generating and explosive capabilities of 'Nuclear' we have't come up with any solution to ALL THAT DEADLY WASTE. Oh.. And if they got off the electical grid for more than a week without back up they melt down and f@ck the whole world. How is this a 'nature friendly' 'cheap' energy source?
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.
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 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
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.
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.
5000 coal miners die each year just getting the stuff out of the ground. 13 people have died each year since the dawn of the nuclear age. These are WHO figures, not guesswork. Additionally, has nobody ever heard of Thorium. If it hadn't been WW2 and a perceived need for nuclear weapons we would now have thousands of Thorium reactors all over the world. All we need is to shift away from Uranium. Thorium can even be used to consume the nuclear waste left over from Uranium reactors.
The benefits largely outweigh the consequences.
Scientist Dr. Barry Brook argues various reasons for a "yes" vote to nuclear power, including:
• Because renewable energy and energy efficiency may or may not solve the energy and climate crises
• Because nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and "packs a huge energy punch"
• Because new technology solves the “nuclear waste” problem
• Because nuclear power is the safest energy option
Considering the major criticisms against nuclear power are largely limited to its safety, banning such a futuristic and required energy source constitutes a gross overreaction. Coal-powered plant pollution, fertilizer factory explosions, and chemical/pesticide factory leaks have killed many, many more innocent civilians than the Chernobyl and Fukashima disasters combined, the two largest nuclear accidents statistically to date.
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.