Start A Petition

U.S. Nuke Plant Safety Questioned in Wake of Japanese Disaster

Environment  (tags: environment, activists, destruction, nuclear power, nuclear energy issues, energy, humans, politics, protection, pollution, government, green )

- 3024 days ago -
As Japan continues to battle the threat of nuclear meltdown in the wake of Friday's devastating earthquake, lawmakers, environmental activists and the nuclear industry in the United States are squaring up for a heated contest over the future of atomic ene


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Alice C (1797)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 3:31 pm
Atomic energy should have no place in the future of the US mix. There are many other ways to produce energy without pollution and deadly radiation!

Carol H (229)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 4:10 pm
signed and noted. thanks Cal

Philip Heinlein (474)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 5:54 pm
Think it can't happen here? Think again.

Melody Aragorn (135)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 7:24 pm
Still thinking why?? Say No More!! for in the end its innocent people who suffer..

Jennifer G (14)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 7:40 pm
My brother has been following this tragedy closely, as have we all. I am proud to say that he is now going to do his PhD thesis on what to do with nuclear waste to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again where nuclear power is already in use. I hope some preventative good can come from all this tragedy.

Bill K (3)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 7:51 pm
humans can't build anything to last. so i'm always amazed at the arrogance of those who think we can safely store the waste for a few hundred thousand years.

Rhonda Maness (580)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 7:54 pm
Thanks Cal

Billie C (2)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 10:09 pm
don't build plants to close the the ocean and on active faults. make sure they are inspected all the time. they are one of the safer cleaner ways to produce power.

Bill K (3)
Tuesday March 15, 2011, 10:34 pm
safer? well except for the waste that has to be stored safely for a few hundred thousand years... and the uranium mining and processing, plant construction and eventual decommissioning, accidents and human errors, and of course the incredible amount of taxpayer money needed to keep the plants profitable and insurable.

KS Goh (0)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 5:24 am
Thanks for the article.

Renee A (4)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 5:57 am
Thanks for article

Bill K (3)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 6:47 am
why don't we build that nuclear waste dump in your neighborhood John? i'm sure you will keep it safe for us for the next half a million years.

an energy source isn't green if when an "incident" occurs it requires the evacuation of everyone within 20 miles and cancer rates rise. by the way, after Three Mile Island it wasn't just human cancer rates that rose in the area but also livestock and wildlife. green? only for investors who have the federal government and taxpayers to insure their investment.

Justin M (2)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 8:00 am

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 12:12 pm
Whether we like it or fear it, this world desperately needs nuclear energy if we are going to escape the worst consequences of climate change. Solar and wind power cannot generate enough energy to meet present global demands. As the population grows, that shortfall will only grow. However, I hope that, whether we all agree or disagree on nuclear energy, we can all agree that the nuclear industry in the U.S. needs stricter regulation and enforcement. So much of what is wrong with nuclear energy in the U.S. and abroad is the corporate mindset that cuts corners to achieve short term savings at the expense of long term safety. I hope I haven't offended anyone and I hope that we all support more regulation of the nuclear industry. Nonetheless, our species is not in any position on this planet to reject any form of energy that is free from greenhouse gas emissions. We are too far down the road to back away from nuclear now.

Roger G (148)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 2:23 pm

Douglas K (134)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 3:31 pm
These nukes must be shut down. Shut em down. No nukes anywhere ever. Nukes aren't healthy.

Tim C (2420)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 5:34 pm

Steve Howard (45)
Wednesday March 16, 2011, 7:53 pm
This from
if you go there much of this is linked.

"There are currently 23 General Electric Mark I reactors in the U.S.--the design that exploded at Fukushima. A top Atomic Energy Commission official first proposed banning this design nearly 40 years ago. List/fact sheet. Updated, includes license renewal information.

Three critical Atomic Energy Commission memos on the GE Mark I reactor design:

November 11, 1971: outlines problems with the design and pressure suppression system containment.

September 20, 1971: memo from Steven Hanauer recommends that U.S. stop licensing reactors using pressure suppression system

September 25, 1972: memo from Joseph Hendrie (top safety official at AEC) agrees with recommendation but rejects it saying it "could well mean the end of nuclear power..."

Ioana B (132)
Thursday March 17, 2011, 3:29 am
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.