• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Support for Nuclear Stronger Than Ever

    That’s according to a recent Gallup Poll:

    While most people have supported nuclear power in recent years – usually in the mid-50 percent range – the poll found 59 percent now favor its use. And the number of people who say they strongly favor nuclear – usually around 20 percent – has soared to 27 percent.”

    This is clearly good news but there’s work to be done. Although the majority supports nuclear energy in the United States and believe it is safe, a considerable percentage of people, 42 percent, still believe nuclear plants are not safe. Part of the reason may be organizations like Greenpeace use pictures (here and here) of rabbits with four ears and elephants with two trunks as scare tactics. (H/T: Nuclear Energy Institute)

    It’s evident education still needs to play a large role in the nuclear debate. The Heritage Foundation has a paper titled, “Dispelling the Myths of Nuclear Energy”, which debunks the fallacies environmental activists purport in their attempt to squelch nuclear power development in the U.S. One of the myths, which would allegedly lead to animal deformities, is the amount of radiation exposure one receives from a nuclear power plant.

    Well, the reality is less than 1 percent of the public’s exposure to radiation comes from nuclear power plants. The average American is exposed to 360 millirem of radiation a year. About 83 percent (300 millirem) of this annual radiation dose comes from natural sources, such as cosmic rays, uranium in the Earth’s crust, and radon gas in the atmosphere. Most of the rest comes from medical procedures such as X-rays, and about 3 percent (11 millirem) comes from consumer products.

    The Department of Energy reports that living near a nuclear power plant exposes a person to 1 millirem of radiation a year. By comparison, an airline passenger who flies from New York to Los Angeles receives 2.5 millirem. Radiation exposure is an unavoidable reality of everyday life, and radiation exposure from living near a nuclear power plant is insignificant. The full paper can be found here.

    The Nuclear Energy Institute’s safety and security page also contains very good information on plant operations, preparedness, personnel training, among other things.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Support for Nuclear Stronger Than Ever

    1. john a. power says:

      It is interesting to note that the use of Nuclear Power in France provides a significant (I'm not sure of the exact % but I believe it is well over 50%) amount of power for electric generation. I also believe that Japan and Korea are also significant users. Most of the plants are modeled after the ones Westinghouse or GE has installed in the USA. I believe that somehow this information has not been given enough visibility in the debates over safety and somehow we should take the opportunity to do so again and again.

    2. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      The issue about Nuclear power in this country is not based on logic but pure demagoguery. The environmental extremists do not care about anything else but to shut down nuclear power. Even though the survey seems to indicate majority favor it, it will never get off the ground. There are enough lawyers and other parasites to see to it that a licensed plant never gets off the ground. For example, FPL who owns Seabrook Nuclear plant wants to construct a second plant at the same site. The old clam shell idiots are stirring up again to mount agitation to stop it even before a license is issued.

      I just wish that the utilities simply shut down all the power plants and vow not to start them up until the government gets rid of all the parasites standing in the way of progress. We don't have to prove the safety of nuclear power to obdurate Neanderthals.

    3. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    4. Connection? -Alberta says:

      59% of respondents cannot tell the Difference between a Proton,Neutron or Electron! The problem is the Waste created and the Strategy for dealing with it. When you cannot smell,taste or see something the explanation for what you plan to do to address it better be clear and based on facts!

    5. John, Wisconsin says:

      The spent fuel waste disposal solution is Yucca Mountain and all of the NIMBY excuses of Harry Reid and Obama will not change the fact that the 10 year search for Yucca Mountain arrived at the best solution. The objections of Harry Reid are not based on any science, but hear say, rumor, and speculation. Who will repay the 13 Billion the industry has paid for Yucca Mountain if it is not adopted.

      If the "blue panel committee to be appointed by Secretary Chu to review the nuclear waste solution does not include Yucca Mountain as an option it will already bias its results. Secretary Chu will not get any credible results for the committee if his instructions include his exemption of Yucca Mountain, simply because Harry Reid objects.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×