Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

im half and a half because it does help and is much safer but at the same time we need something thats even more healthy and safe

We should use nuclear along with other cleaner and alternate energy like wind, hydroelectric and geothermal.

Yes, as long as it does not interfere with with any local, state and federal land reserved for public use.

Yes, but only after enough research so it can be done in the safest way.

Yes , I believe that it is possible but it should go through a trial run to see how safe it is and to see if there might be any issues with using nuclear energy.

Ask the people who will be using the power in question.

unaware of this situation

I need to research on the subject more.

Yes and no it just depends the reasons why the nuclear weapons want to be used. It has to have reasonable cause .

Yea u would if it was more safe

yes, but the government should keep in mind public safety

Depends if something really bad happens and we need it.

yes, as long as no body is in danger of death or injury

Yes but it should be heavily regulated not only by the U.S government, but internationally governments should have a say on how to regulate the construction of nuclear weapons.

Yes, I'd prefer thorium nuclear.

yes as it is use safetly

not informed enough to make decision

Yes, if advanced nuclear technology can have a safe, environmentally considerate, material impact on accelerating the healing of our world, we must consider it.

I have mixed answers. so I can't answer.

yes unless it is hurting the earth and people in any way

Yes, it is a cleaner use of energy and doesn't pollute the air as much.

Yes, but with current technology to make them safer without the waste that the current ones leave.

4th Generation Nuclear power will propel the US to the top of the greenest, cleanest, and safest energy production country. We need a state of the art upgrade to our energy infrastructure and 4th Generation Nuclear power is the wave of the future. Wind and Solar are inefficient, costly, and the materials used to create the panels and blades are hazardous to the environment. 4th Gen Nuclear has little to no waste, can run for 25 years without having to be refueled, and are self-contained so there is no risk of a Chernobyl or Fukushima like crisis. In addition, they can be built to a micro-form factor reducing the footprint of the plant. There is no need for massive superstructures that were previously built in the mid-1900s.

I dont have much knowledge in this subject...

No, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal because if a nuclear meltdown were to happen, big negative events such as moderate amounts of casualties and cancer from nuclear radiation would occur, and those are just examples of SMALL nuclear meltdowns! Remember Chernobyl? Yes, it was caused from user error, but very large and very catastrophic nuclear meltdowns similar to that one could still occur in many of the nuclear power plants dotted around the planet, in fact, in some areas afflicted by the Chernobyl disaster, people are still being…  Read more affected by small amounts of nuclear radiation; too small to cause instantaneous negative impacts, but enough to cause permanent damage over time. Most nuclear reactors cool down using water, but needs so much water that only pipelines coming from the ocean can carry enough water to keep these things cool and prevent meltdowns caused from one problem, and due to global warming caused from the heating of Earth from it's previous ice age (yes, this is still happening), and that's the main cause of global warming, combined with in part greenhouse gasses, and this is also putting jellyfish populations on the rise, and because of how many there are, how thick and gooey they are, how thick the are, how many of them generally travel in extremely large groups, how easily they clump up after death, and after dying, all of the previous problems stated are amplified, (with the exception of travelling in large groups for, obvious reasons), making it really easy for a jellyfish or group of jellyfish to clog up a nuclear reactor's cooling pipe, thus causing even more nuclear meltdowns to occur much more often.

Yes, but at the same time, look into cleaner alternatives because nuclear energy does not cause the amount of carbon emissions to drop.

It depends on if the parents want it or not.

Yes, if we invest more into the research of nuclear power and reach a system that is very safe like TerraPower (founded by Bill Gates) is doing.

Yes, but move nuclear reactors underground to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on them and the consequences of nuclear disasters

sure i dont really know

We need more research for better versions of what we have now, I believe we're creating too much nuclear waste for it to be sustainable.

nuclear energy 2 drawbacks one is the fallout that will render land around it useless the other is the united states does not have any long-term storage and does not have a way to reuse nuclear waste as of the time I am writing this.

Only if absolutely needed

I don’t have enough knowledge about this to form an opinion

yes but also no.

Don’t understand Nuclear Energy.

It should be a last resort, and the public should have a vote in order for it to be used.

I dont have interest in this topic enough to choose.

Yes, and drastically reduce regulations to allow nuclear power to become more profitable.

Yes, but needs to be supervised often without anything could happen.

Yes and No depends on what it's being used for.

No I do not because radioactive waist can be harmful for humans.

Yes, though with heavy regulation and while introducing incentives for renewable energy sources that wont negatively impact the environment.

Yes and no it deppends on the situation.

I don't fully understand this topic but I think nuclear energy should only be used to protect, and even then there should be rules and regulations to minimize loss of life. To put it simply the first use act; where you agree to not attack first.

Yes if they can find better ways to dispose of waste

Yes as long as we can do it safely which we can.

It depends on what it is used on but generally no, we can use better renewable alternatives

Only use when necessary

Yes, and nuclear power should become our primary means of energy production

don't have an opinion for this

Yes because it would be very difficult to have the U.S. with only clean energy.

Kinda it just depends on what it is used for.

Yes, if it is locally practical; moreover, we should invest more in decentralized micro-grids, battery technology, and cleaner alternatives such as solar, wind, geothermal, and fusion.

No, because nuclear energy can be dangerous when put in the wrong hands. It is not safe and we do not have enough knowledge about it.

Yes because they do help out our state. No because it hurts are atmosphere and trapping more heat So yes and no

yes, but as long it's not close a population

until we invest into cleaner solutions.

Yes, but run a Manhattan project to develop sustainable fusion technology along with grants funding private fusion research.

yes, as long as they don't get injured

yes i support nuclear energy based in plutonium and thorium becuase it produces more energy than uranium and less waste

Yes, as long as we use it safely, and inside regulations

Yes, as long as it is kept safe and contained.

we shouldn't use uranium and we should use thorium

yes but with care and not just lunching them randomly

No because there are other humane ways to handle our problems

Yes, but I also support investments in clean alternatives

I would need to be educated on this topic a bit more before having an opinion or stating anything further.

No, it is dangerous to use because use it on people by accident

Yes, but we still need to invest in cleaner alternatives

Yes, but with iron-clad regulation and not allow company lobbyists to dilute them.

I0 am iffy.

Yes, but not near civilization or on good land. Probably in the desert would be better

No, either leave it up to the states or privatize energy in general

If it is in a maintained environment, not in the desert with animals or other people.

only in places where they have shortages at peak power consumption

Yes, we should use nuclear along with other cleaner and alternate energy like wind, hydroelectric and geothermal.

Yes, with better oversight.

Yes, as long as safety requirements are maintained and strictly enforced.

if we need to yes

I think it used be used to a limit

Yes, and we should also increase investment in renewable alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium and geothermal.

Yes, with more oversight.

yes, add big incentives and possibly subsidize the sector

Yes, as long as it's safe and all day measures are taken

Yes, as long as it's safe and all safety measures are taken

yes, as long as they use lithium or another material that is dependant on two or more variables to generate heat, and energy.

Sure it doesn't matter

Yes, as long as it is a business decision, not a government mandate

Nuclear energy is fine as long as it is used in a way which does not damage the environment.

Yes, but we shouldn't be funding it

Yes, but we should be looking into other clean energy sources, too.

Yes, and further increase the industry as it has shown to be the cleanest, most consistent, and most efficient energy source

No, we should invest more in fossil fuels until we develop safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste

Yes aslong as the owners of the plant are liable for anything wrong the plant does.

Yes, as long as it is carefully watched and used safely.

Yes, only because of war what if someone nukes us and then we ban it?!

I dont really pay that much attention to nuclear energy

Yes, but regulate