are u for or aginast nuclear weapons/energy

although nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity, nuclear energy is still very help. it produces massive amounts of energy but a accidental mistake can lead to a huge disater.

so wat do u guys think, im really interested in opions.

p.s. despite the threats im pro nuclear energy use. its a neccesity for humanity's progression

I believe that nuclear is indeed the future. It's certainly a better idea that pumping crud out of coal smoke stacks (which also contain radioactivity). Every other method of power generation out there is either ineffective or produces more wide-spread ecological damage.

Hydrogen dams kill fish and are only useful where there's a lot of water. Solar cells require sunlight and need a variety of nasties in production. Wind turbines are improving but still cannot support a community (nor do we know the impact massive farming of energy from wind will have). Coal, oil and gas are non-renewable and have their own set of problems. Tide turbines haven't been proven to any significant extent.

That said, Zoom has a point. What disposal? Do you know where most companies store their used rods? In tanks on premises. The government promised to take care of the waste decades ago, yet there still is no safe dump in the United States, and political wrangling will keep that from happening in the foreseeable future. Perhaps they should ask France for advice?

>>7's more a raving looney than most greens, BTW. Just because they may be wrong on one count does not mean they're wrong on all of them. Or would you like to gamble the future for minor gains despite an absolute loss if your gamble fails?