New Gallup poll shows waning support in U.S. for nuclear power

[flamingdem]

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/21/new-gallup-poll-shows-waning-support-in-us-for-nuclear-power.html


Seven in 10 Americans say they are more concerned about a nuclear disaster occurring in the United States after the recent events in Japan, including 39% who say they are "a lot more concerned," according to a new Gallup poll. The poll also found more people now opposed to than in favor of construction of new reactors: "The events in Japan may also be diminishing Americans' support for the use of nuclear power in the United States. The poll finds 44% in favor and 47% opposed to 'the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States.'" 56% of women opposed new construction with only 36% of men opposed - a traditional gender breakdown reflecting a historic tendency for more women to oppose nuclear energy than men. 34% of women were in favor of new constrution while 55% of men favored it.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/146660/disaster-japan-raises-nuclear-concerns.aspx

Disaster in Japan Raises Nuclear Concerns in U.S.
Americans divided over construction of nuclear power plants in U.S.
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Seven in 10 Americans say they are more concerned about a nuclear disaster occurring in the United States after the recent events in Japan, including 39% who say they are "a lot more concerned."

Have the recent events in Japan made you a lot more concerned, a little more concerned, or not more concerned about a nuclear disaster occurring in the United States? March 2011

[flamingdem]

1. Today's Thomm Hartmann: update on Japan situation

At minute 7 he goes over violations of various USA nuclear plants


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyLM3fKaJ_I&feature=player_embedded#at=419

[AKDavy]

2. I'd prefer to think that the change in opinion was based on

new information and reason, but I suspect it's based more on fear.

A lot of polls are like reporting on which side of the valley the sheep are on. Answer: Whatever side they think the wolves are not today.

[flamingdem]

3. New information could include a Level 6 disaster

and lies and incompetence to go with it.

Imagine this kind of accident happening in India, Iran?

Welcome to the nuclear future, when it's too hot to go near it even the USA won't save you...

[flamingdem]

4. NRC just relicensed Vermont Yankee today? How did that happen!

NRC relicenses US reactor that is same design as Fukushima

With audacious (and we would argue reckless) timing, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today officially issued a license extension for the Vermont Yankee reactor, the same GE Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactor design as those in crisis at Fukushima, Japan. A mass vigil on Sunday at the plant was attended by 600 people but on Monday the NRC declared the reactor safe enough to operate another 20 years when its current license expires on March 21, 2012. Bob Stannard of Citizens' Action Network told Vermont Public Radio: ""It's unimaginable to think that the NRC would declare this plant safe when this plant houses 640 tons of spent fuel in an unprotected fuel pool with no containment vessel; In Japan, the plant that's in the worst shape has only 80 tons."



http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/21/nrc-relicenses-us-reactor-that-is-same-design-as-fukushima.html

[leveymg]

7. We haven't even begun to put pressure on the White House, DOE and NRC to stop licensing

This is a natural rallying point for growing public revulsion to this industry that isn't even economically viable without public subsidies, and which is now demanding $40 billion more.

[flamingdem]

8. The light has to be put right on this public spending. "We're broke"! nt

[RC]

9. Maybe this reactor was not on an earthquake fault and near possible tsunamis?

The problem wasn't so much with the reactor in Japan, but where it was located.

The real problem wasn't so much the reactor or the even the earthquake, but all that water rushing up to 30 miles inland.

Your fear mongering arguments weakens under the impact of facts.

[leveymg]

11. Did you even read that comment? It's about design flaws in the GE MK1. Where's the fear-mongering?

Sometimes I think the pro-nukes on this site just hit buttons without even listening to what other people have to say. That's a form of arrogance that makes them a lot less effective messengers than they think they are.

[bananas]

14. No fear-mongering, just science: Probabilistic Risk Analysis includes natural disasters

How does catastrophic failure due to natural disaster fit in the curve?
"PRA includes both internal events and external events, i.e., natural disasters."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x280273

Probabilistic Risk Analysis of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear War

Over the past several years, I've pointed out that we can expect a nuclear meltdown about every 23 years, and here we are, right on schedule, 25 years after Chernobyl. Because most reactors are now in the wear-out phase of the bathtub curve, the failure rate will be increasing, which means we can expect to see more meltdowns over the next 23 years. The only way to avoid it is to shut down these old reactors.

<snip>

Replies:

<snip>

3. How does catastrophic failure due to natural disaster fit in the curve?
4. "PRA includes both internal events and external events, i.e., natural disasters."

<snip>

[AKDavy]

5. That's the problem, as I see it

We can't trust the information we're given. Risk is played down. Financial interests are routinely put ahead of safety concerns. Fear, not reason, are used to manipulate public opinion. In the U.S., everything seems to be a function of a pseudo-free market, and when elections can't be bought the corporations simply buy the elected, so those chosen to "serve and protect" can't be trusted.

The bullshit is overwhelming, from every direction.

[AndyTiedye]

6. Both

Now we know nukes were NOT designed to withstand 9.0 earthquakes and tsunamis and that scares the hell out of us!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke: :hide:

[bananas]

12. A lot of people were unaware of the dangers of spent fuel pools and limitations of containment

and a lot of people still are.

Chernobyl-scale disasters or worse can happen at modern reactors
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x622363

Reactor containment buildings are not designed to contain a meltdown
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x280732

Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe Escalates in Japan – ‘Worse than Chernobyl’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x277707

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Maybe the fear is based on new information and reason.

Like, "fuck? What kind of numbnuts decided to stick 6 nuclear reactors clustered close together in an earthquake zone, and then store the high level waste generated by the reactors in the same buildings, but with no containment whatsoever?"


Maybe the "sheep" aren't as stupid as you think.

[damntexdem]

10. Well, duh.

Funny how people react when the emperor's lack of clothes faces them in their stares. ;-)