Some opposition to the expansion of nuclear power plants in the US is generated by those who produce power by other means such as coal, oil, and gas. But the major opposition comes from the part of the population that has a somewhat exaggerated fear of nuclear power plants. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima loom large as nuclear disasters. All three situations were the result of poor design and construction.
He is in a supine position. The oppose is the prone position.
The increasing number of core electrons serve to "shield" the outer electrons from the positive charges in the nucleus. Thus, the effective nuclear charge (Zeff) is reduced.
in 3012
== ==
Oppose motion.
Mainly I think these are people who oppose anything to do with nuclear power
He is in a supine position. The oppose is the prone position.
Because its is inexpensive and clean power
nobody has asked me. i don't.
because thats all thank you
Yes, most advanced countries are either building nuclear or considering it, but there are always groups who oppose it as well, so it depends what you mean by 'widely'
It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.
They opposed this fearing that the new states in the west would become Jeffersonian and the rapidly expanding frontier would 'decivilize' the entire nation.
The reason is that there are many people around the world who are uneducated in the nuclear power field and therefore still assume the stereotypical nuclear meltdown or mutations will occur and as such, oppose their construction vehemently. Also, it is quite expensive to develop and build such plants.
The countries united in NATO. (They did so with the help of nuclear weapons because communist countries had surplus in conventional weapons.)
The increasing number of core electrons serve to "shield" the outer electrons from the positive charges in the nucleus. Thus, the effective nuclear charge (Zeff) is reduced.
It is a dangerous technology that could wipe out the majority of the world's population in a couple of hours. Besides, Mexico does not have any enemies, thus by banning nuclear weapons on its soil, Mexico has a moral advantage in case it is attacked by a nuclear power (i.e. it would be considered an atrocity, forcing many nations to side up towards Mexico in case of a nuclear attack).