If you didn't know, it is pronounced New-Ka-Ler.

who voted true and why?

Me and perhaps it isn't as dangerous as you think.

The question wasn't whether nuclear power was dangerous, it was whether the US needs more conversion sites.

Nuclear fission energy is even less renewable than carbon-based fossil fuels. When we use up the deposits in the Earth's crust, we're done. So why would we need to convert it faster?

US reactors are safe. Nuclear waste isn't a huge problem because you only need one dump site.

Spreading depleted uranium all over Iraq (and wherever else we fight) in munition rounds is highly irresponsible, IMHO. Even if you buy into the government's current thinking that it's safe, there's energy in that material, and if someday we figure out how to use it, it would be a lot easier to send robots into a nuclear dump site to fetch it than to try to sweep the old battlefields.

Did I ever claim it was dangerous?

Nuclear power, in of it's self is not terribly dangerous.
The reason I voted no and will always vote no, is what do we do with the waste?
And who can we trust to be responsible for it for the next 100,000 years?

And by responsible, i mean that it won't be allowed to contaminate ground, water or air, essentially forever!



Considering that there are OTHER VIABLE alternatives, i strongly, very strongly say no!

Indeed but there are no carbon emissions and we have enough material for nuclear power, for many centuries, some even think for thousands of years. So i am guess we have enough for now.

Since the majority of our power in this country comes from coal, i would say nuclear is a step in the right direction and until something safer that is a viable alternative comes along, i say we need more nuclear power plants.

If Americans were REQUIRED, both by law and economic incentive to not be wasteful,
we would't need nukular energy.



PERIOD!

We use Nukular Energy for the heat to make steam that turns the generators.
A blending of future wizardology and the stone age.

It's a bit like using a jack hammer to drive nails with.

The energy path:

nuclear --> heat --> mechanical --> electric

The steam engine is an excellent way to convert heat to mechanical energy, and it has lasted 300 years with little change or competition. And since we don't really know how to produce anything other than heat from nuclear energy, it's a logical choice.

On the waste issue -- you really only need one site which is well-maintained. And we already have enough waste to need that one site, so...

Well maintained? One good earthquake or one good bomb.....

Again, if our society were either required and or given economic incentive to reduce waste,
the whole issue would become moot.

I have real personal issues with nuclear power, there is not a single nuclear power plant in Utah, and yet companies like Energy Solutions (a name which is only slightly less asinine than their old moniker of Envirocare) keep buying up land here. Then other states pay them to dump the waste in Utah.