Advantages And Disadvantages Of Nuclear Safety In Malaysia

This accident has been, by far the worst nuclear power plant accident within the borders of the United States.However, the studies conducted by governmental groups such as the Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania as well as numerous independent organizations have deemed that the accident at Three Mile Island had very little, if an at all, effects on the health of the communities surrounding the plant.[8]

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

You may not know much about nuclear power, you may not know anything at all but most importantly you may not know how dangerous it is. I am going to take a look back at Chernobyl and show you just how dangerous it can be.

The PAA is an amendment to the 1946 Atomic Energy Act (AEA), designed to stimulate public interest in the development of the privately operated nuclear power facilities to expand the nuclear industry and to meet the growing demand for electrical power. This was accomplished by establishing protections for the nuclear industry by establishing limits of liability and indemnity pursuant damages resulting from an incident involving radiation or radioactive release irrespective of cause or fault and concurrently pledging compensation coverage for the general public.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

In spite of the fact that not required by the Price-Anderson Act, NRC regulationsii oblige licensees to keep up at least $1.06 billion in on location property insurance at every reactor site. The NRC included this necessity after the Three Mile Island mishap out of worry that licensees might be not able take care of on location cleanup costs coming about because of an atomic mischance. This insurance is required to cover the licensee's commitment to settle and purify the reactor and site after a mishap. Right now, just Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited gives this insurance to

On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, around 4 a.m., there was a failure in the water pumps at the Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania. This led to a partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all conducted particular studies of the radiological consequences of the accident. Approximately two million people were estimated to have received an average of one millirem of radiation, and there was a maximum dose to a person who was at the site of 100 millirem (“Backgrounder”). To put this into perspective, an exposure from a single chest X-ray is two to six millirem (“Doses”). However, this put fear into the minds of politicians and others all across the country. What the people do not know, though, is nuclear is better. Instead of using fossil-fuels and wind power, America ought to switch to nuclear energy to power the country because it is safer, cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable than the current ways of producing energy

It is also can cause fatal consequences. One of the main disadvantages of nuclear power plants is the severe consequences of accidents.

Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island — all known as major nuclear power disasters. Nuclear power might be a good source of power, but in the long run it can be a real hazard and should be banned. If we rely on nuclear power to be our primary power source, it will cause major problems to humans and the environment. Nuclear power is hard to dispose of, expensive to run, and the reactors can easily be disrupted and cause the release of massive amounts of radiation.

Countless nuclear power plant accidents have been occurring quite frequently since its invention. Some accidents have even been underestimated,

Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Many critics argue that due to the Three Mile Island nuclear incident that occurred March 28, 1979, in Pennsylvania resulted in a reactor meltdown, with no casualties due to a combination of equipment failure and a lack of operators understanding what to do to a faulty reactor. This incident has put the majority public to have safety concerns over not only the operators working in the plants but also the civilians in the surrounding area. Yet since the accident, the United States formed the National Academy for Nuclear Training to improve training the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations which reviews and accredits nuclear utilities’ training programs for all key positions at each plant. In addition, nuclear energy plants have proven the ability to produce clean electricity without greenhouse gas emissions and the reliability due to its increased efficiency and increased power output.

With any large energy producing facility there are risks. The truth is that accidents do happen at nuclear power plants and at other facilities all the time. An example of this was the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania where there was a partial meltdown in March 1979. More recently was the worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Statistical data for 1995, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency early in 1996, indicated that there were a total of 437 operational nuclear power stations in 31 countries with years of experience. Chernobyl was the only plant that injured the public. Thus, judging by the data, that is a good record for a source of energy.

Global demand and consumption of energy is at an all time high; the world needs a safe, efficient, clean, and high producing source of energy production. The solution is something we already use for energy production, Nuclear power. From the beginning of nuclear energy there has been concerns over the safety of the power plants and its impact on the environment. With climate change and more accurate information on nuclear power the tide is shifting in its favor. This paper will explore the positives of nuclear power, political change on nuclear power, safety of the energy source and new technologies associated with the nuclear power process. Most importantly are the risks associated with nuclear power worth it? Research suggests that nuclear power is safer now more than ever and has less of an impact on the environment than coal or oil. Public support and misconceptions over the years have been up and down due to political agendas and those who are misinformed about nuclear power. Individuals who are involved in the energy field are in favor of nuclear power and building more plants with newer technology.