Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

100 Replies

 @8T54N3Sanswered…4yrs4Y

I support both nuclear energy and clean alternative energy such as wind and geothermal

 @AdrianEMoseranswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, and nationalize that industry. But we should also invest in alternatives such as wind, hydropower, thorium reactors and geothermal energy. Then let studies determine which is the best option in the long term.

 @925JC5F from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

 @8ZSR5NL from GU  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, with more oversight and rigorous adherence to safety procedures (i.e. proper knowledge of how to dispose waste safely) to prevent accidents and to ensure safety of citizens. However, renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, etc.) should be prioritized first.

  Deletedanswered…4yrs4Y

 @8Q2SF7Canswered…4yrs4Y

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

 @92XHX9V from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

 @9334YP3answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, in principal, just as soon as we figure out safer ways of disposing of the nuclear waste that it produces. Until then, we should increase investment into fossil fuels.

 @924MYCK from GU  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but with more oversight and rigorous adherence to safety procedures to prevent accidents and to ensure safety of citizens. However, renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, etc.) should be prioritized first.

 @8HWR395answered…4yrs4Y

 @8TP6QKSanswered…3yrs3Y

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

 @8VYLX9Vanswered…3yrs3Y

It depends if it is a crisis at hand that needs to be taken to these extreme measures of using nuclear weapons.

 @8BYVY6B from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8LM7ZBKanswered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8MNYGHJanswered…4yrs4Y

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

  Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes Yes, but with public subsidy Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives

Yes, but more oversight and rigorous following of safety procedures is needed to avoid accidents and to ensure safety of citizens so long as it can be guaranteed as safe and the waste is safely disposed.

  Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes Yes, as long as there is no public subsidy Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives

Yes, but with more oversight and rigorous adherence to safety procedures to prevent accidents and to ensure safety of citizens, and with proper knowledge of how to dispose waste safely, while we invest more into renewable energy resources.

 @3BFHHKNanswered…4yrs4Y

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

 @heatherdvdprincessanswered…4yrs4Y

Yes, measures have been taken so it is now one of the safest sources of energy.

 @8QG5XSM from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

If a nuclear power plant were proposed in your area tomorrow, how would you personally feel and why?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What, in your opinion, is the biggest factor in deciding whether nuclear energy is right for your country today?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

If we could guarantee that nuclear energy would drastically reduce global warming, would you support its widespread adoption?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Would you feel differently about nuclear energy if a close family member worked at a nuclear power plant? Why or why not?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How do your environmental values shape your stance on the potential risks and benefits of nuclear energy?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

If nuclear power had been the only solution to a blackout situation during a natural disaster, would you have supported its immediate implementation?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What fears come to mind when you think of nuclear energy, and do you believe those concerns are justified today?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you think media portrayals of nuclear disasters, like those in movies or headlines, have shaped your views on nuclear power? In what way?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Would you trust modern technology and scientists to make nuclear energy safer today than it was in the past?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

If you could speak directly to people who have experienced nuclear energy disasters, what questions or concerns would you raise?

 @tasibuttel from Nevada  answered…3yrs3Y

 @8TGVTS3 from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

 @8ZK5HYT from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

 @8WRL5Q9answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, with litter tax payer money. And not in the hands of the government and lobbyists.

 @8CYNLQJ from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8HJP9WN from Idaho  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8GSSFLN from Delaware  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8ZGPKM9 from Missouri  answered…3yrs3Y

yes because it could come to extreme and we could get damaged and destroyed by other nuclear weaponized areas

 @6VWJ8PP from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

 @BaylorBlum from Mississippi  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8ZGPKQP from Washington  answered…3yrs3Y

If someone like another state is using nukes for bad reasons and another state helps by using nukes to them? then yes.

 @8TVYZQL from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

 @7KCBJ6J from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @7KCBJ6J from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @kgtiberius from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @MilesBHuff from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @78S5M87 from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

 @7W3SBDC from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8BYQSPN from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

 @89CDM9C from Kansas  answered…3yrs3Y

 @8CMYYVX from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8CNT65N from Montana  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8CQ4NFX from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8CYKLWK from California  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8CV6FZ5 from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

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

  @RickStewart from Iowa  answered…3yrs3Y

I support the free market deciding what kind of energy is created and at what cost. If there is pollution involved, the government should tax it, in order that no one be exposed to it without just compensation.

 @8DKB3WK from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8DJQ5JK from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8DR2W8T from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8FDYQN3 from California  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8FSLGMY from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8FY3V9N from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8FZ6TMX from Colorado  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @riddlecongress from Connecticut  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8QPG4TW from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8GFV2CC from New Jersey  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8GMR5G7 from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8HJJYYL from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8HJ76X4 from Minnesota  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8HQP6RT from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8HL5YXT from Arizona  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8JPFDDC from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8JN5ZTL from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8JRFRHX from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8K6X9Q8 from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8KLLCKT from Oklahoma  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8KH79S2 from Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8KS5B7Q from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @8KRSKYV from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8L2DQDJ from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...