I'm not against nuclear as long as it's done properly and responsibly, but they usually aren't. As we all know, nuclear reactors can fail from either operationa

I'm not against nuclear as long as it's done properly and responsibly, but they usually aren't. As we all know, nuclear reactors can fail from either operational malfunctions or exterior effects such as earthquakes or tsunamis. However, when things go wrong, there are no backup plans in place for the backup plans when things go wrong, which is very much needed when we're talking about the types of consequences nuclear meltdowns can have. Not only this, but when things go wrong, the companies that run them try to keep the seriousness of the situation under wraps for as long as possible in order to protect the company and b then at which point it becomes too late to take more proactive measures. To make matters worse, most nuclear reactors in the United States were built in the 1960s and 1970s and they were only designed for a lifespan of 40 years, which means most of them should be shut down. However, since a lot of money is at stake with how much reactors cost, regulators rewrite the rules and extend the useful life of the reactors and put us all in danger. That is what bothers me and that is why I am against nuclear reactors - because when money is on the line, all bets are off.