Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Poll: Few confident US ready for nuclear emergency

Fri Apr 8, 2011 4:21 AM EDT
business, politics, us, power, poll, ap, nuclear-power, most-americans, associated-press-gfk
Matthew Daly, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>FILE - In this March 20, 2011 aerial file photo taken by a small unmanned drone and released by AIR PHOTO SERVICE, the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is seen in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, northeastern Japan. From top to bottom: Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3 and Unit 4. Worldwide calls to curb nuclear power amid Japan's plant crisis could be bad news for the environment unless nations finally go all-out to tap wind, solar and other clean, renewable energy, climate change negotiators and activists say. (AP Photo/AIR PHOTO SERVICE, File) MANDATORY CREDIT</p>

FILE - In this March 20, 2011 aerial file photo taken by a small unmanned drone and released by AIR PHOTO SERVICE, the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is seen in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, northeastern Japan. From top to bottom: Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3 and Unit 4. Worldwide calls to curb nuclear power amid Japan's plant crisis could be bad news for the environment unless nations finally go all-out to tap wind, solar and other clean, renewable energy, climate change negotiators and activists say. (AP Photo/AIR PHOTO SERVICE, File) MANDATORY CREDIT

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Most Americans doubt the U.S. government is prepared to respond to a nuclear emergency like the one in Japan, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows. But it also shows few Americans believe such an emergency would occur.

Nevertheless, the disaster has turned more Americans against new nuclear power plants. The poll found that 60 percent of Americans oppose building more nuclear power plants. That's up from 48 percent who opposed it in an AP-Stanford University Poll in November 2009.

The Associated Press-GfK poll comes as Japan continues to struggle with a nuclear crisis caused by a March 11 earthquake and tsunami. The crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant has leaked radiation into the environment and radioactive water gushed into the Pacific Ocean. Japan was rattled by a strong aftershock and tsunami warning Thursday, but officials reported no immediate sign of new problems.

The poll finds that about a fourth of those surveyed were highly confident that the U.S. government is prepared to handle a nuclear emergency, while almost three-fourths were only somewhat or not confident.

But many people doubt such an emergency will happen in this country.

About three in 10 think such an emergency is extremely or very likely, compared with seven in 10 who think it is only somewhat or not likely. Among people who think a disaster is highly likely, almost eight in 10 lack confidence the government would be ready.

Even among those think it's not too likely or not at all likely to happen, almost two-thirds still lacked confidence the government would be ready.

Nancy Hall of Long Beach, Calif., said the Japanese crisis has not soured her on nuclear power.

"Well, despite the disaster in Japan, I think that nuclear power still has a lot of advantages over fossil fuels, " she said, noting that nuclear energy, unlike oil, does not funnel money to "Middle East dictators" and is not as polluting as coal-fired power plants.

"You have to keep in mind that gas and coal are constantly polluting, day in and day out, and we don't even think about it," she said.

Hall, 36, a linguistics professor, lives within a four-hour drive of two nuclear plants but said she is not too worried about either one.

"I do hope the government is looking carefully at how to safeguard them," she said. "But truthfully, nuclear power is not at the top of my list of worries." Of more immediate concern: The building where she works is not earthquake-proof.

The poll indicates that nearly one in four Americans lives within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor. Those who reported living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant were not significantly more or less likely to have confidence in the government's ability to handle a nuclear disaster.

Those who live close to nuclear power plants were less likely to be strong opponents of building more nuclear power plants than those who live farther away. A total of four in 10 of those who live more than 50 miles from a plant strongly oppose building new ones, compared with three in 10 who say they live within 50 miles of a plant.

U.S. government regulators are reviewing safety at the nation's 104 nuclear reactors in the wake of the Japanese crisis. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it will look at the plants' ability to protect against natural disasters and terrorist attacks, respond to complete power blackouts and cope with accidents involving spent fuel, among other issues.

The NRC says U.S. nuclear plants continue to operate safely.

Still, Kelli Hughes of Brookhaven, N.Y., worries about nuclear power, calling it a toxic menace. Hughes, 33, owns an online business and lives less than 80 miles from nuclear plants in New York and Connecticut. She said she strongly opposes construction or expansion of nuclear plants.

"We have to think about what it's going to do to the environment when we're done with it," she said, referring to nuclear waste. "Look what's happening in Japan now," she added. Radioactive waste "is leaking and it's toxic."

Once land is tainted by nuclear waste, "you can't use it," Hughes said. "It kills everything — the land, the air, the water around it."

Damian Padua of Chicopee, Mass., said he is skeptical that renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power can generate the electricity the country needs. Padua, 32, a printer, said the U.S. government and citizens alike are likely to be overwhelmed in the event of a nuclear disaster.

But after the initial shock, he said he is confident authorities and the public would rally.

"I think we have the necessary resources to help everyone," he said. "I think we can do a better job than the way it's going in Japan actually."

The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted March 24-28 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Matthew Daly's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (37)
Bdobb

To avoid potential emergencies, we could settle to live with all the creature comforts of an ancient cave dweller. Technology and evolution has it's price. Stop constructing tall buildings-some nut might fly a jet into one. Stop driving your car-you're not prepared to properly handle your own first fatality.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 6:17 AM EDT
Nick46

I wonder how you prepare for the unknown?

    #1.1 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 8:41 AM EDT
    badchess

    One of the unsung triumphs of the Bush years was the hardening of us nuclear plants post 2001.

    • 1 vote
    #1.2 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 9:30 AM EDT
    jdl-28

    We will never be safe if what happen in Japan happen here nor would any countries. Accept it nuclear power will never be safe no matter what any one does, so learn to live with it and stop answering what can we do to make it safe or keep writing about it what good is it doing you.

      #1.3 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 2:11 AM EDT
      badchess

      We will never be safe with dams either, or coal, or natural gas, etc.

      Life is a trade off.

        #1.4 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 9:37 PM EDT
        Reply
        Will_4_Freedom

        I wonder why all these great liberal thinkers... the progressive minds of the elite... put all their trust in ancient technology. A windmill and the sun. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.

        What would a solar powered fighter jet look like? Maybe a sail powered cargo ship. Fresh fruit in winter? Forget it.

        Why is no one talking about H3?

          Reply#2 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 7:40 AM EDT
          tbart

          Nuclear fission is basically 1958 technology. We need to look to the future and that means we need to look to new technologies, not tweaks and updates for the old wat of doing things.

          And you don't think it could happen here, huh? That tsunami in Japan reminded me most of what happened when Katrina hit the Mississippi coast. A 20' storm surge came in on top of high tide and driven by 140 mph winds. It was a 30' wall of water that pushed several miles inland. And we have nukes, a couple of them, on the Atlantic coast of Florida. Also another about 200' from the San Andreas fault in California. And if you REALLY want to consider a nuclear mess in this country you might contemplate what would happen if the hellish mess at Hanford in Washington were subjected to serious natural catastrophe.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#3 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 8:47 AM EDT
          badchess

          Makes one kind of sad that Obama and Reid are doing such a fine job of preventing the Hanford clean up, eh?

          • 1 vote
          #3.1 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 9:31 AM EDT
          Foy-49

          Nuclear steam boilers, the most dangerous form of energy production ever conceived of by man!

          • 2 votes
          #3.2 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:27 AM EDT
          badchess

          Any idea how many people have been killed by dams (both building and when they fail?) over the last few centuries?

          Coal mining?

          Falling off the freaking roof when installing solar panels?

          • 1 vote
          #3.3 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:29 AM EDT
          Foy-49

          Any idea how many people have been killed building nuks?, mining for uranium?

          Falling off the roof while trying to put up Christmas lights?

          • 1 vote
          #3.4 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
          tbart

          Obama is preventing the Hanford cleanup huh? Yup, him and the previous 9 administrations. As far as casualties doing this or that, pretty much total deflection and irrelevant to boot.

          Fission is dead as a dodo. Let's get to work on what comes next.

          • 2 votes
          #3.5 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 11:32 AM EDT
          badchess

          By preventing moving the Hanford waste to Yucca Mountain, yes he is.

          To bad Carter killed nuclear recycling.

          Seems to be a trend with democratic presidents. Keep nuclear waste large and as unsecured as possible.

            #3.6 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 11:50 AM EDT
            tbart

            Yeah, well....sure we could be recycling like Japan and France are doing, and in the process producing more & more & more plutonium. Wouldn't it be great if there were more & more & more countries doing that?

            Storage or recycling - in my book neither is a satisfactory long-term solution. I go back to what I said above - there is no point in fixing our future to fission technology. You don't like wind & solar? OK, then I'd put some serious research horsepower into fusion.

            But the nukes we have been dealing with for the past 50 years are a remnant of the past. They were going to be cheap...they are not. They were going to be safe....don't think so. They were going to last forever...they did not.

            And as far as democratic presidents, seems like I recall twenty years of Repub presidents between Carter & Obama. They must have been otherwise occupied, huh?

            • 1 vote
            #3.7 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 12:45 PM EDT
            badchess

            I'm a all of the above sort of guy.

            By the way, Bush and Congress approved of the yucca mountain repository in 2002.

            http://www.yuccamountain.org/archive/legal.htm

              #3.8 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 2:06 PM EDT
              badchess

              By the way, I wrote John McCain, George Bush, and president Obama with this suggestion:

              Taxpayers get a 100% return of all federal tax money they spend to cover the cost of adding solar power to their house if they choose to do so.

              With these caveats:

              1) Solar panels manufactured in the US

              2) Any extra power belongs to the government and goes back on the grid.

              So, you pay an average of $10,000 per year in federal taxes, and put in $20,000 of solar panels.

              The next two April 15's you receive a check for $10,000.

              No response. So I'm out three stamps, and three envelopes.

                #3.9 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 2:16 PM EDT
                tbart

                So how much of the waste got shipped to Yucca Mtn between 2002 & 1/20/09?

                • 2 votes
                #3.10 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:14 PM EDT
                Reply
                Bighorn

                Japan does not have massive unused inventories of natural resources like the US and their best choice was to use nuclear energy. The US has coal, natural gas, hydroelectric power, wind power and oil as available sources of energy. Why take the chance of killing millions of our citizens when using nuclear energy should there be a accident caused by any number of things even terrorism.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#4 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 9:42 AM EDT
                badchess

                Any of the power sources you mention have had more deaths in the US than nuclear.

                In addition president Bush saw massively hardening of nuclear plants post 2001.

                Now if we could just get rid of Obama and Reid and use the Nuclear repository in Nevada we'd really be doing well.

                  #4.1 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:02 AM EDT
                  Foy-49

                  badchess -- The citizens of Nevada might have something to say about that.

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.2 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:31 AM EDT
                  badchess

                  Interesting.

                  Are you then a supporter of states rights to do with as they please on federal land?

                    #4.3 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:55 AM EDT
                    Foy-49

                    With in the law, yes.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.4 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:57 AM EDT
                    Foy-49

                    badchess -- What state projects on federal land did you have in mind?

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.5 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 11:29 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    badchess

                    I had in mind Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Perhaps the most scientific studies issue in history.

                    If we had not spend so much money on it (and if it wasn't clearly the best site in the US) I'd be glad to tuck it away at a suitable distance from the Columbia River in Eastern Washington.

                    But since so much money has been spent, and it is such a suitable location I find it ironic that an administration that made the claim of "we won't ignore science like previous administrations" chooses to sacrifice science at the alter of political expediency.

                      Reply#5 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 11:55 AM EDT
                      greg-709692

                      Americans can be so fickle!

                      We always seem to worry about things, AFTER a disaster.

                      I'll call it "Weiner" syndrome!

                      Our plants are fine.

                        Reply#6 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 12:15 PM EDT
                        Foy-49

                        badchess -- Yes, but the state of Nevada has the right to accept or reject federal projects with in the state. Nevada rejected it.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#7 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 12:31 PM EDT
                        Tink-2285193

                        As a country that has 140 nuclear plants around the country, I think the US should be ready to deal with it. There has been more damage and deaths caused by tornadoes, floods, snow storms, wildfires, hurricanes, mining accidents and oil spills than nuclear plant disasters.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#8 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 1:52 PM EDT
                        tbart

                        And your point?? You might think about the fact that you are more likely to drown in the bathtub than die of snakebite, but I can guarantee that if you find a rattler in the bathroom you won't be worried about the dangers posed by your tub full of suds.

                        The point, which I would think would be obvious by now, is that radioactive substances stay radioactive for a quite long period of time. Also that hardly anyone dies promptly on being exposed to radiation. It takes a long time. Years. Sometimes a generation. Anybody talking about the lack of casualties at Fukushima is either ignorant or lying thru their teeth.

                        • 2 votes
                        #8.1 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 11:04 PM EDT
                        Tink-2285193

                        tbart - and your point is? That I and everyone else should live our life in constant fear of what might happen if a nuclear plant does belly up? I live in So. Calif. and 'the big one' could happen any time, and we have had some really big earthquakes during the 40 plus years I have lived here, 3 of which where I lived. I lived many years in TX, Miss, Ala, Louisiana, GA and OK, and recall the spine chilling sirens that warned of an impending air attack by the Russians during he Cold War period that are also used to warn of impending tornadoes. I lived through 3 major tornadoes, a devastating flood that wiped out an entire section of Ft Worth TX when a levy broke in a rain storm, and 3 major earthquakes in So Calif. and I never want to do any of that again. But, that fear does not stop me from living my life in So Calif, traveling to any of these others states, even living a again in GA for 4 years. I drive the freeways of Los Angeles on a daily basis and have seen my fair share of horrific accidents, am I supposed to stop driving the freeways in fear of something like that happening to me?

                        You are welcome to live under a rock if you are afraid to live in the real world, but, there have been more deaths and devastation in the world caused by earthquakes and tsunamis have than nuclear accidents.

                          #8.2 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 2:29 AM EDT
                          tbart

                          My point is simply that it makes no sense to be saddling future generations with a toxic mess - which nukes are very consistently leaving behind - so that we can have cheap energy now. I understand the attractiveness of fission generation. It produces large-scale consistent power, it is not based on fossil fuels, and the production cost is quite low.

                          Totsl cost, however is very high. So high that the only way it works is with massive amounts of government subsidy. They are very expensive to build, far more so than other types of generation. The disposal of spent-fuel presents VERY long term problems, no matter which way it is approached, storage or recycling. The plants themselves are long term hazardous sites after they are decommissioned. And the possibility of disaster is always there, as anybody who reads the news understands today.

                          No, I'm not for hiding under a rock. Life is not 100% safe - ever. But that doesn't mean we should be ignoring risk. I'm for approaching the future with the technologies of the future, not the technologies of the past. Fission plants have not lived up to the promise they showed in the '50s and '60s and they are now a dead issue. No more will be built, you can count on that.

                          • 2 votes
                          #8.3 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 9:12 AM EDT
                          Tink-2285193

                          tbart - I'm not for building the old school version of Nuke plants either, but, we should not just turn a blind eye to nuclear energy because of the old plants. We need to be innovative and come up with more modern and safer plants not abandon the concept and continue to reply on fissile fuels that do nothing but pollute our air land and seas, and only feeds the wealthy corporations that continue to rape taxpayers with high prices and disgusting huge tax breaks and concessions. That is something no worse to leave our future generations than nuclear residue. Take a look at the oil spills and disasters that have polluted our waters and destroyed environments and people's lives for many years to come. Some of them will never recover. Is this any better? Can you think of a better solution that the NYMBI's and environmentalists will allow? If so, then I think the President and the world would love to hear them. I know I would.

                            #8.4 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 9:52 AM EDT
                            tbart

                            You don't favor building the Old School version of nuke plants. Fine, but the problem is that there is no New School version. Yes they have better controls, but the process itself is the same and it has the same problems. High total cost, very long term waste problems, permanently toxic sites, and the threat of accident. None of those problems go away with a fission plant built today.

                            You are concerned with "the wealthy corporations that continue to rape taxpayers with high prices and disgusting huge tax breaks and concessions." Do you really think building new fission plants is any way to address those problems? Huge tax breaks and concessions are the ONLY way new fission plants will be produced. They are economically impossible otherwise.

                            What we need are new approaches, not tweaks to old technology. As I've said above, applying some serious horsepower to nuclear fusion would be a great idea as fusion has very few of the problems of fission [no radioactivity, for instance] while producing exponentially more power. There are also the advances such as smart grids that don't take the one-size-fits-all approach to producing and delivering power. There are hybrid systems of generation which match wind power and natural gas much as the way a Prius matches a gasoline engine with battery power. There are tidal generators. There is geothermal. There is solar.

                            Much of this technology is not ready for primetime yet, but that is what R&D is all about. And much of it also is right on the cusp of economic viability, however if this country places its bets on fission plants instead we will be moving ourselves backwards, not forwards.

                            I'd rather go forward.

                            • 2 votes
                            #8.5 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 11:00 AM EDT
                            Tink-2285193

                            tbart - "I'd rather go forward."

                            So would I. That is why I said in my post, "we should not just turn a blind eye to nuclear energy because of the old plants. We need to be innovative and come up with more modern and safer plants. We need to be innovative and come up with more modern and safer plants."

                            I also did not say we should move forward with fission plants, just that we should not abandon the concept of nuclear energy. Certainly we can't start building newer technology plants if the technology is not yet there, but, that should not stop us from seeking that technology. The ideas are not just going to fall out of the sky like rain. It will take time and money to research and perfect the technology. And the time to start that is now.

                              #8.6 - Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:46 AM EDT
                              Reply
                              tbart

                              Yup, unbelievably enough, the folks in Nevada are distinctly disquieted with the idea of trains coming in from all over the country with loads of nuclear waste that will need to be tended to for...what is it...24,000 years? What the heck is wrong with them anyway?

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#9 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 10:18 PM EDT
                              badchess

                              I'm fine with storing it at my house.

                                #9.1 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 9:39 PM EDT
                                tbart

                                The truck will be there in the morning. You might want to arrange space in your garage.

                                  #9.2 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 11:04 PM EDT
                                  badchess

                                  I was thinking the attic, the garage is already full of crap.

                                    #9.3 - Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:22 AM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Leave a Comment:
                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                    FUN STUFF:
                                    • Leaderboard |
                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                    • The Greenhouse
                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                    • Code of Honor |
                                    • Company Info |
                                    • Contact Us |
                                    • Jobs |
                                    • User Agreement |
                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                    • About our ads
                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com