Talk:Nuclear power greener/a critique of Nuclear power: renaissance or relapse? Global climate change and long-term Three Mile Island activists’ narratives.

All the people who participated in the research were social scientist and could be biased because they are not in favor of the nuclear energy. They could not prove that some of the health consequences were the results of other factors.Lfamc (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Although nuclear power has caused some problems, the incidents are few and far between. With energy sources such as oil, the harmful outcomes occur more often, with explosions and fires. Also, with the constant retrial of coal and gas, daily exposure cause horrible health concerns for those working in that industry. Cthom4751 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Expose to nuclear power is very dangerous for our body, in a country where there is less nuclear power, people there has little or no cancer in their body which comes to prove that technologies with radiations has too much nuclear to slowly take someone's life.Bomor394 (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The public may not be able to give a reasonable scientific response to the issue because public sentiment is based on emotion and speculation rather than informed fact. As the survey is based on the opinions of activists, their opinions may be biased towards one side. While it is true that the Three Mile Island event is considered the worst nuclear environmental disaster, it is only so because it has been the only nuclear environmental disaster in US history. LaurenAL (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is only one case it has been proven that Nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy while being sustainable, environmental friendly and without producing GHG emissions.This also save money for many economies and this can operation can be run without is being a disaster.

Shayd948 (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)