swansont Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Surely its implications are unethical? factors such as terrorism and radiation exposure to people around waste dumps can't be right. As opposed to the implications from fire, that can be (and has been) used by terrorists, and exposes people to radiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon9393 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 im sort of neutral on the nuclear power issue if its a country's main sorce of power then dont take that away but if its not the only or main sorce then i think we could do without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwe)k Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 As opposed to the implications from fire, that can be (and has been) used by terrorists, and exposes people to radiation? Don't quite understand what you're saying here? opposed to what I'm saying or for? As opposed to the fact that nuclear power plants are to expensive and take to much time to make and run. This is not good enough for the drastic change that is needed to prevent climate change (which will kill a lot of people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now