After the nuclear crisis in japan, should the US still pursue Nuclear energy?

Answer 1

Umm, the crisis in Japan was the non-nuclear tsunami that followed the non-nuclear earthquake and killed over 10,000 people. The power plant problem has harmed no one and isn't expected to either.

If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding.

Here is an informative article describing the situation:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fu...

And here is where you find current, factual status information:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsun...
Historical status:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011...

And a slide presentation that describes the effects:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/radiological-monitoring-and-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident-2-june-2011

And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:
http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

Nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest energy source out there. And before you come down on nuclear energy, take a look at coal. In the U.S. 20 to 60 coal miners die each year compared to zero nuclear power plant workers. Pollution from coal power plants kill over 20,000 people in the U.S. annually compared to about 100 people killed world-wide from nuclear power over the last forty years. The only thing coal has going for it is that it doesn't have "nuclear" in the wording so therefore it must be safe. It seems that most people have learned about nuclear energy from sci-fi B movies rather than from studying the science.

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/01/us_coal_mining_.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/

And coal isn't radiation-free either.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Answer 2

I think so. I feel that while the crisis in Japan shows the dark side of nuclear energy, the media is blowing it out of proportion.

Answer 3

Of course. Nuclear energy is still the ONLY viable alternative energy source we have. We should be trying to make it better, not get rid of it.

Answer 4

I dont like nuclear power but it is going to be essential in switching from gas to renewable energy, you can't go straight from one to the other....just because the tsunami hit japan does not mean it would happen anywhere else......thats like saying we should stop making cars because people crash them.......or we should stop boats, cause they gets destroyed in bad weather

Answer 5

Absolutely,
with the proper system in place of course
No shortcuts in regards to safety

Answer 6

No, I think there are other ways of having energy.

Answer 7

Only if the US can assure it's self that they build in an area far from natural disaster areas, but then you knew that didn't you?....

Answer 8

after air crashes air lines have no been abandoned
make plane safer and also reactor safer

Answer 9

We have never resolved the problem of storing spent fuel.
Until then, I feel we should not progress.