Yes, I am. And even with that, it’s safer than turning the planet into a greenhouse. If we have an earthquake, tsunami and meltdown around here, it would be bad. However, tusnamis don’t climb that high and modern designs would avoid that particular kind of meltdown. Even meltdowns are a safety feature designed to mix fissionables with neutron absorbers to kill the reaction. They had a mixture, not cooling it enough to avoid a meltdown but adding water and dumping the contaminated water.

AND
“That almost 10% of Japan is too contaminated for crops to be grown?”

Nope, don’t keep up with the specifics. I do know Japan is a small place and the reactors were near croplands. I assure you plants are growing there even if you or I wouldn’t’ want to eat them.

AND
“That the radioactive contamination from Fukushima has been measured in California soil?”

I am aware we can measure radiation at levels far below naturally existing background. Remember, every shovel of dirt on the planet is radioactive and always has been.

AND
“That bluefin tuna in off the California coast are contaminated?”

They were in the area where the jury rigged coolant was dumped into the ocean then they swam here. Now address the levels, remembering they were radioactive to begin with just as you are.

AND
“I cannot agree with your statement that nuclear power is “safe”. “

Try reading carefully, make the distinction between “safe” and “safest”. Nothing is safe but some things are safer than others.

David for safest power with caution

Are you aware of the nuclear disaster that is still unfolding in Fukushima, Japan? That almost 10% of Japan is too contaminated for crops to be grown? That the radioactive contamination from Fukushima has been measured in California soil? That bluefin tuna in off the California coast are contaminated? I cannot agree with your statement that nuclear power is “safe”. The last thing we need in Escambia County is a nuclear power plant.

Nothing happened to them. They are still there, just like coal powered energy.

What’s more, they still have the same old problems. Solar only works when the sun is shining, can be damaged by high winds, hail, pollen, lightning, snow, birds relieving themselves, stray shots. Wind only works when the wind is blowing at certain times of the day.

Figure out a way to store it better and transmit it further and you will have contributed greatly to the planet, assuming your methods don’t damage the environment too badly.

Nuclear, works day and night, rain or shine, fair weather or foul. It can be placed anywhere even though most prefer it be in someone else’s back yard. It CAN run for years without refueling. It produces no greenhouse gases. The fuel can be produced domestically so we are less dependent on radical people to keep the lights on and grandma from freezing.

The only real problems with nuclear is what happens to the spent fuel afterward — and that isn’t really a problem, it can be recycled or sealed — and what happens if radioactive material is released due to human error or terror.

There is a financial problem in that the companies want the users to pay for construction without giving us a share in the company and we‘d rather not pay anything we can avoid. There is a regulatory problem in that different people come into power every couple of years and some will create artificial problems for political gain.

David for safest power

Oversight…They probally had the same problem they are having here in our area.Fighting a community that does’t want change.

If we are fortunate enough to get this plant, maybe there would be some hope for kids that don’t want to move away to actually have a decent job here, close to home.