• Yes, because cleaner and cheaper energy saves life.

    Yes, nuclear power should be considered a life-saving technology. As the world experiences global warming at unprecedented rates, finding safer and cleaner forms of energy is paramount. If we keep relying on fossil fuels for energy, global warming will only worsen and more lives will be lost. Moreover, much of the world cannot afford fossil fuels, investing in and creating cleaner and more efficient sources of energy is a much-needed, life-saving technology.

  • Nuclear power has historically proven too unstable to be a safe and viable sustainable resource

    From Three Mile Island to Chernobyl to Fukushima, nuclear power plants have poisoned people, plants and animals and have destroyed ecosystems.

    Nuclear power could very well someday be a source of power, but right now it is just too unstable. Whether it's human error or mechanical breakdown, the disasters surrounding nuclear power plants outweighs the potential benefits.

    Other, safer sustainable resources should be developed before nuclear. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power sources are more deserving of advancement than nuclear at this time.

  • No, Nuclear power is dangerous and not worth the potential gain.

    Nuclear technology is capable of tremendous output, however from Chernobyl to the Fukushima disaster it is clear that it is a volatile generating method. Even if the safety procedures are improved to the point that it is near impossible for another catastrophe to happen, the potential permanent damage to the environment and future generations of humans everywhere is an unacceptable risk.

  • Look at the past

    If governments invested half as much in alternatives as they have done with Nuclear power we would be in a much better position. A single nuclear accident affects more lives over a much longer term than other technologies. There has yet to be a resolution on what to do with radioactive wastes, and they are stock piling in questionable conditions. Vast swatches of land in the Chernobyl area will be contaminated and uninhabitable for decades. The land unusable for 100s of decades. Second generation cancer and birth deformity rates are high and still occurring. The Fukushima plant was leaking radioactive water 2 years after the accident. Thyroid cancer in the zone of contamination has risen 4x the norm. It's only a matter of time before an other incidence occurs. When we start layering the effects of accidents over one another we'll see where we are headed and it's not rosy.

  • It has many medical uses

    While there are many negatives about it as well, those negative uses, such as creating bombs can be regulated if its other uses are to save lived in medical settings. This is no different than considering getting rid of radiation because of negative uses when it is used to save cancer patients.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.