Welcome to Gaia's forums, where millions of members gather to discuss random stuff, make new friends,
complain about life, argue about nothing, laugh at dumb pictures, discuss serious issues and/or curse like sailors.
Lurking is creepy. Quit skulking in the shadows and join the conversation!
Register to reply
|
|
|
 |
No, because the risk of environmental contamination is too great. Even after the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster the safety procedures for nuclear fallout have not been implemented in most cities. Even if nuclear waste was stored in the mountains, mountain rivers and streams could become contaminated.
Also, building a nuclear reactor is expensive and other methods such as wide-spread solar farms or drawing upon geothermal energy would be a better option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Nuclear energy: Well it's still not the cleanest, but it certainly beats oil!
The best thing about it is that it's fairly clean and it still generates alot of power.
Wind and solar energy isn't quite there in terms of effeciency. You would need alot of windmills or solar panels just to power one community.
Hydroelectric energy is crap if you want to be eco-friendly. it actually does more harm by disrupting river ecosystems.
Wind power could mean bad news for bats and migratory birds.
Ethanol is complete and utter bullshit even if it burns cleaner than fossil fuels. All it means is that we waste more food, let the hungry people starve, and destroy more natural habitat to create farmland.
So i guess nuclear's ok, just as long as we dont have any "accidents" like Chernobyl.
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's alot of bias in the media against nuclear power, but the truth is, it's not as bad as they say it is. Ever since chernobyl and the three-mile island incident, containment strategies have gotten infinitely better- and the radioactive waste is in no way harmful as long as it's properly stored.
Nuclear power is MUCH cleaner for the environment than fossil fuels ever will be, and it's also quite cost-efficient.
The incident that occurred at Chernobyl was the result of a poorly set-up facility in soviet russia. The people there had no clue on what the regulations should have been or how nuclear containment should have occurred.
Something like chernobyl is not likely to occur again with the degree of technology we have.
|
|
| |
|
|
