NZ should remain Nuclear Weapon Free, but consider the viability of Nuclear Energy?

On average, everyone agrees with significant nonconsensus between 85 voters.


Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

NZ should remain Nuclear Weapon Free, but consider the viability of Nuclear Energy

You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.

Reasons To Disagree

We don't want another chernobyl

15 November 2005

My problem with Nuclear energy is what do we do with the Waste?

17 November 2005

i dont't think we should ever touch nuclear weapons because it wil effect our environment. It doesn't really fit in with New Zealands clean green image.

17 November 2005

we dont wont any i mean wind and hydro have no wast and dont fuck up da enviroment 2 bad

19 February 2006

The cost in putting the infrastructure in place would far outweigh investment in clean, safe energy sources.

10 November 2006

nuclear energy is the dirtest energy with highly radioactive waste that no one has managed to dispose of safely - therefore its cost far out ways its benefits - its mindless

27 April 2007

Nuclear weapon free absolutely yes, but I also think that there is enough evidence to doubt that nuclear energy is necessary or viable for NZ

14 June 2007

Would sooner see US ships visiting our harbours than Nuclear power stations permanently in NZ, IF we have other options - which I think we do.

28 October 2007

That is two completely seperate questions and so cannot be answered by an agree or disagree - however - NZ should recognise the inevitability of using nuke energy - And the possibility in the future of a need for nuke weaponry - but we probably couldn't afford the weapon - especially since we'd first have to buy an Air Force to deliver it..

22 December 2009

There should be nothing nuclear in New Zealand it will destroy the country

20 June 2011

No Nuclear what-so-ever

26 June 2011


Reasons To Agree

I think so. There have been huge advances in technology since the early nuclear reactors, which is all anyone ever seem to cite in terms of safety and waste management. For example, Toshiba developed a 10 megawatt reactor that is sealed below ground and runs for 30 years. There's no waste to deal with (the core is recycled) and no maintenance of the reactor itself (just the steam turbine). See

10 December 2005

It is highly improbable that NZ could ever afford nuclear weapons, so this is a purely academic problem.

14 February 2006

We don't need nuclear weapons but we do need energy, so we might as well look at all the options.

20 April 2006

Some countries recycle nuclear fuel in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not nuclear weapons. Then the waste from the second useage (which makes it less radioactive) can be put down the hole it was mined from, where the area is naturally highly radioactive. Also hydro dams, and coal (which we rely on) produce carbon dioxide. While nuclear power is slightly cheaper than coal, and half as expensive as wind power.

21 April 2006

With our population increase of 25% and no new infrastructure we nedd power, We will never be able to save enough. Unless Kyoto is scrapped we will not be able to generate affordable power. Given the choice of Nuclear, or Pensioners freezing to death we will need to lok at everything. I doubt we will ever use nuclear as the smallest Nuclear station would produce too much power for NZ, but we need to do something and our options are very few thanks to Kyoto

19 June 2006

We need to be realistic: non-carbon generation will probably not be possible with other technologies i nthe near future.

16 March 2007

Late last year WNN reported the news that Sir Bob Geldof had come out strongly in support of new nuclear build, saying that we have to 'go nuclear, fast' to save the planet. Also, popular author and presenter Jeremy Clarkson has expressed his support for nuclear energy in The Times newspaper.

26 February 2008

Nuclear Free, No Nuclear Weapon, No Nuclear Power

18 October 2014

This is a good choice, but even though it will be EXTREMELY costly, it would be very important to furnish the Nuclear plants with all sorts of protection so that in the event of any full scale natural disaster, bombing, or anything like that, it won't even place a scratch on the plant.

21 May 2017

Reasons for Remain Neutral

No reasons have yet been given to remain neutral.

My View

You can make your comments once you have voted.

You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.

Back to all voting categories or
Back to "Environment"

This website is sponsored by Website World. Click here to find out more.