1. Inhalt
  2. Navigation
  3. Weitere Inhalte
  4. Metanavigation
  5. Suche
  6. Choose from 30 Languages

Social Media

Readers anxious about nuclear safety after Japanese incident

The explosion at a reactor in the quake-hit Fukushima plant has awoken fears about nuclear power safety among DW readers. Some, however, say media hype masks the fact that atomic energy is cleaner and safer than coal.

An official wears protective clothing as she scans a man for radiation at an emergency center in Japan

Many doubt that nuclear power can ever be 100-percent safe

The following comments, from Deutsche Welle's Facebook page, reflect the views of DW-WORLD.DE readers. Not all reader comments have been published. DW-WORLD.DE reserves the right to edit for length and appropriateness of content.

The science behind how a nuclear meltdown occurs

I hope that there will be a change in the energy development strategies on this planet....Don't say nuclear power is environmental anymore. - Singpa Leung, Hong Kong

I believe atomic power has its place in meeting the world's power requirement. Perhaps the type of cooling in Japan, the US and the former Soviet Union relies too much on external factors and is very complex. The Canadian cooling system as implemented in the Bruce Nuclear Power Development [on the eastern shore of Lake Huron] is a much more reliable and simpler system. It deserves a hard look in any new atomic energy plant production. - Manfred Schlaich

Scary stuff. I personally think that earthquake-prone countries should be severely questioned before they embark on such a risky venture. – Jay Jayn

Nuclear is cleaner and probably safer than coal! Nuclear accidents are very rare. - Erin Clothier

It amazes me how many people in the US think that nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly. Most people are not aware how much radioactive waste they produce. - Daniel Bayer , US

I should hope supporters of nuclear energy change their minds after this. It simply doesn't work to consistently build perfectly secure stations over and over and over everywhere in the world, protected against an infinity of possibilities. In the end, someone will weasel out of regulations, some government will find it too expensive to enforce them, some terrorist will acquire the waste, some facility will be struck by an earthquake and leak, and so forth. It isn't worth the risk. Besides, uranium ore can supply nuclear power for 50 more years. We have organic solar cells, concentrated solar power, wind turbines, and a plethora of storage technology. Why do we even bother pretending we don't have more alternatives than we know what to do with? – Trevor Martin Sloughter, Germany

I've always thought it was a bad idea. We live a few miles from a nuclear power plant and it has always scared me, especially when I see the huge steam cloud it makes. Why was this thing so close to the ocean anyway? Not only does Japan get earthquakes and tsunamis, but hurricanes too, and those can be just as destructive to a costal town. - Suzanne Camacho

No to a power plant here! The word "nuclear" itself sounds like explosion and extermination to me (even if it's an alternative source of energy). - Ec Villacorte

Compiled by Ben Knight
Editor: Toma Tasovac

DW recommends

Audios and videos on the topic