|
It's clean power if done right these days. They're all over Western Europe now, with no problems so
far.
I even read about a year ago they found a micro-organism that digests the nuclear waste.
Or we could keep making DU rounds for our men and women in uniform. Either way, they're safer now
and the waste isn't as much of a problem. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe it is a saf-ER alternative than burning all the fossil fuels. And I believe safeguards at
plants should do the trick in most cases. BUT, part of me does still fear an explosion or meltdown,
and I think that's a reasonable fear considering the awesome power and/or pollution which would be
released if all went very wrong.
Still, we should continue with nuclear. The only thing saf-ER would be natural energies such as
wind, solar, hydroelectric, and I'm all for those too but they aren't at a stage yet where they can
replace everything else. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean there can't be another Chernobyl in the US. Even
safe guards can't totally mean complete safety. On the other hand I understand the need for clean
energy. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
02 Sep 2008 20:50
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
