Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

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

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

haudhauhduaidl.akdjoakjdijokdjkaildnbkaodnjak IDK

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.

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.

depends on what the energy is being used to produce

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.

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.

In what way? For weaponry? Not really

Yes, if it’s safe for citizens

Yes, with better oversight.

Yes, with more oversight.

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

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

Yes, but regulate

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

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

not informed enough to make decision

Only if absolutely needed

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

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

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

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.

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.

Yes, if the right person uses it

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

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

only in places where they have shortages at peak power consumption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, as long as it is safe for our environment

Honestly i do and i dont

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

Yes, let the free market determine the best energy sources

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

I need to research on the subject more.

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

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

if we need to yes

yes but also hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal

No because there are other humane ways to handle our problems

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Yes, I'd prefer thorium nuclear.

until we invest into cleaner solutions.

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

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

Yes, but only for plants that don't produce nuclear waste.

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.

unaware of this situation

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

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

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

Yea u would if it was more safe

yes as it is use safetly

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.

Depends if something really bad happens and we need it.

yes, but the government should keep in mind public safety

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, 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.

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.

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

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

It depends on if the parents want it or not.

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.

sure i dont really know

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.

Don’t understand Nuclear Energy.

yes but also no.

I dont have interest in this topic enough to choose.

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

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

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

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 and no it deppends on the situation.

Yes if they can find better ways to dispose of waste