Try the political quiz

13.8k Replies

@B4RJS4PDemocrat from New Jersey answered…2 days

No energy is green and environmentally friendly energy while fossil fuels are still being used to produce the materials to build these alternatives in mass production. Nuclear energy is more likely to provide a better energy outcome and can be the most environmentally sustainable if done properly and quickly.

@B4PQGCKDemocrat from Michigan answered…6 days

Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives and Yes, and nationalize the industry

@B4PPTMWLibertarian from Texas answered…6 days

@B4PKD5RDemocrat from California answered…6 days

@9HJ6RH2Peace and Freedom from California answered…2yrs

Yes as long as they are using it safely and that is reasonable reasons to do so.

@9HJ427WAmerican Solidarity from Minnesota answered…2yrs

As long as you keep yourselves safe and prevent nuclear meltdowns.

@9HJ22PRPeace and Freedom from Missouri answered…2yrs

We should wait till we find a better power source and if we can't then yes we should use it sparingly

@9HHZN2JGreen from California answered…2yrs

Yes, nuclear energy is shown to be safe. But the adolescence of nuclear research has stained just the name of nuclear; the name alone causes panic. Advancing to fusion energy would be a massive leap in humanities existence.

@9HHYX6VWorking Family from Ohio answered…2yrs

Yes, we should use Thorium since it needs a catalyst to produce energy and produces less nuclear waste than Uranium.

@9HHW8Z6Libertarian from Illinois answered…2yrs

@9HHRXVBWomen’s Equality from Texas answered…2yrs

Yes, but must be regulated strictly to ensure environmental safety and public safety

@9HHQJFVAmerican Solidarity from North Carolina answered…2yrs

@9HHP4RKGreen from North Dakota answered…2yrs

Yes, but with the Industry being away from city's so there is less a danger to people.

@9HHGNMNWomen’s Equality from Colorado answered…2yrs

Yes, as long it is for the intended use and to help our community.

@9HHFQL6Women’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…2yrs

i feel like he pollution is out of control and maybe they should find a way to fix that but other than that yes.

@9HHCTZCPeace and Freedom from Massachusetts answered…2yrs

@9HH66MDGreen from North Carolina answered…2yrs

Yes, but only with proper ways to dispose of the nuclear waste and proper ongoing up keep of those facilities.

@9HH5W4MWomen’s Equality from Massachusetts answered…2yrs

No, I don't think we should competently abolish it, just reduce it

@9HH524DTranshumanist from Illinois answered…2yrs

I support it but then at the same time I don't because it isn't the most pure thing and has bad side effects.

@9HGZ7CXWorking Family from Texas answered…2yrs

Yes so long as the government ca guarantee the safety of the citizens

@9HGY9GZWomen’s Equality from Kansas answered…2yrs

Only keep the ones built working. No need for more plants. As we cannot use that land for anything else, we might as well keep using that space for nuclear energy.

@9HGTLCSGreen from New York answered…2yrs

@9HG94TGPeace and Freedom from Connecticut answered…2yrs

I partially agree, but if we are able to invest more in and capable of using cleaner alternatives like hydroelectricity, wind energy, and/or solar power, we should.

@9HG8FGKWomen’s Equality from New Jersey answered…2yrs

Yes, but increase funds for different kinds of energy as well as research about it.

@9HFWWBCWomen’s Equality from California answered…2yrs

a part yes and no because due to carelessness they misuse it and the part yes due to forest changes,

@9HFTC7VTranshumanist from New York answered…2yrs

@9HFT47RDemocrat from Pennsylvania answered…2yrs

no i feel like the way the earth is going now we need better options and safer ones

@9HFMDFMPeace and Freedom from Texas answered…2yrs

Yes, as long as they are finding new ways to help provide energy that is better for the environment

@9HFJSRSWomen’s Equality from Ohio answered…2yrs

As long as the waste produced is substantially lower than the energy produced.

@9HFG34ZDemocrat from Indiana answered…2yrs

@9HFD6RNConstitution from Wyoming answered…2yrs

Yes, but only if we have an effective way to dispose of the remnants

@9HDVR9DDemocrat from North Carolina answered…2yrs

@9HDTDS9Progressive from California answered…2yrs

@9HDN57YIndependent from North Carolina answered…2yrs

I think we should use more sustainable energy sources like solar energy

@9HDHZZDTranshumanist from Pennsylvania answered…2yrs

Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives and raise the safety standards.

@9HDBZD9Republican from Connecticut answered…2yrs

yes but it needs to be improved so that there is no threat of the reactor malfunctioning like it did in Chernobyl

@Tony-Hakston-(Hi…Peace and Freedom from Texas commented…12mos

Chernobyl is an extreme outlier. The reactors were outdated even at the time, they were simulating blackouts for a safety test, the decent personnel's shifts ended in the middle of one of the tests, the replacement personnel were undertrained, the power went too low, the replacements didn’t properly restore power, the operating instructions were incomplete, they kept doing the tests despite that, and by the end the reactor was in such an unstable state that shutting the reactor down is what caused it to go supercritical.

It takes a special kind of incompetence to cause a Chernobyl Disaster.

@9HD9F25Women’s Equality from Nevada answered…2yrs

No, I feel we need to use the natural sources of energy we have available to us, the wind and the sun are powerful forces of nature. Besides reactor meltdowns cause decades of destruction and devastation.

@9HCSGZWWomen’s Equality from Texas answered…2yrs

the use of nuclear energy scares me so i guess this is a no but i understand why it is there


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...