Do you agree that the petition is being overly cautious, and thus alarmist?
If you just mindlessly oppose every source of power, you won't be taken seriously.
I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the plan, who wants to take the chance of adding (more) radioactive waste to their drinking water?
Brain Cancer Cases Shot Up in This Florida Town—Is a Defense Contractor to Blame? October 14, 2014
For years, radioactive waste has seeped into swampland, canals—even drinking water. https://www.thenation.com/artic...tractor-blame/
Sinkhole in Florida Leaking Radioactive Waste Into Drinking Water
September 22, 2016
A Florida nuclear power plant is contaminating Biscayne Bay with radioactive waste, creating a potential public safety threat and threatening Southern Florida’s drinking water supply. 10.03.2016
Yes, radioactive waste is dangerous, but so is air pollution and climate change.
"7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution"
"Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually."
I can find hardly any death tolls from nuclear power plants and radioactive waste.
// "13 deaths, plus 54 serious ailments" //
In my opinion we need as many nuclear power plants as possible.
You know, it's not a choice between storing nuclear waste under an aquifer and not using nuclear power.
Correct, that is a valid point. Yet, if too much regulation is put upon nuclear power, this will encourage other more deadly power sources.
"The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor"
Fortune has learned that DOE plans to sign a 10-year collaboration agreement with China to help that country build at least one molten-salt machine within the next decade. And in a smaller development, Oak Ridge publicly announced in January that it will advise Terrestrial Energy, a privately held Canadian start-up, on development of a molten-salt reactor that draws on Weinberg designs and on the reactor scheme that briefly hatched at Oak Ridge after Weinberg left.
Neat link and video, but I think it is too soon to know if the new nuclear power plants are feasible or not.
I'm gonna be unpopular about this but Nuclear plants scare me. I mean one proper bombing before they can figure it our and a major city is wiped out
I'm not happy about Nuclear power plants either, but there is lots and lots of other stuff I'm not happy about either. For example, ebola, totalitarian regimes, climate change and many more. We have to compromise.
With climate change being such a concern, I'm more worried about Co2.
nuclear is not safe, if history is to be a teacher, nuclear needs to be destroyed
I would take 1,000 gas plant explosion over 1 nuclear failure. did you know that Fukishima is still spewing garbage into the ocean? causing death and cancer to many animals and humans.
too bad the lobbyists supporting nuclear have invested billions to make sure you and i don;t hear about it on MSM
We make compromises everyday. I think the risk of nuclear power is worth it compared to the risk of climate change and air pollution.
//"Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually." //
well the animals in the pacific ocean disagree with you, and truth be told thousands of people with cancer would disagree with you too if truth was actually told, too bad nuclear lobbyists have spent millions to make sure the likes of you remain BRAINWASHED on the real dangers of Nuclear plants. they are ticking time bombs, and the waste they produce is millions times worse then gas oil or coal, the half life of the waste is well over the average human life X 1O at least. NOThING, about nuclear plants are safe or a good idea.
Provide evidence and my mind may change.