Argumentative Essay On Nuclear Waste

Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.

Beginning with the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, a widespread belief has proliferated that all levels of ionizing radiation are dangerous. Since 1980, radiation hormesis studies have shown there is actually a threshold of danger with high level exposures, but below that threshold low dose radiation is essentially safe and quite possibly beneficial to life. Yet, this relatively new, seemingly contradictory understanding of radiation's health effects has gone essentially unknown to the general public. In order to grasp the reasons why, we must again return to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Billions of pounds every year could be spent on improving our health service, police force and so many other worthwhile causes that could benefit from the money but instead our government has decided to spend that money on burying nuclear waste. Nuclear waste when recycled could make them more money because once you process nuclear waste you can use it again to produce nuclear energy. So why are are they spending billions to get rid of something that could make them another billion pounds. Them being the owners of the nuclear plants and also the government.

“A tiny speck of plutonium-239, as little as three millionths of a gram, can cause lung cancer. One pound of plutonium-239 contains enough specks to kill nine billion people instantly” (Pringle 26). Plutonium-239 is a human-made element, also known as the most dangerous substance on earth. As a by-product of uranium fission, plutonium-239 is created by generating electricity from nuclear sources. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is hazardous and threatening to health. The use of nuclear energy should be banned as evidenced by the number of accidents, health effects, and global impact.

Individually, they're no larger than your pinkie, but the energy-packed pellets that are the radioactive remains of nuclear power generation pose an enormous problem for nuclear energy plants that weren't originally designed to store them. So far the 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States have generated an estimated 45,000 tons of waste that is expected to remain radioactive for more than 200,000 years (Onion, 2016). And right now, the waste, which emits radioactive particles that can eat away at human tissue and organs, is being stored in tanks or concrete and steel bunkers at sites that were only meant to contain the waste for perhaps decades, not centuries. "Spent fuel is now stored in pools and dry casks," says Rodney Ewing, a professor in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan. "Today it's safe. But it's certainly not a long-term solution (Ewing, 2015)."

In the twenty-first century, nuclear waste disposal is the most compelling environmental issue, and it poses a threat to public health. The United States federal law established Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 198216 which provide permanent disposal and storage locations for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. These are the remote location to prevent radiation exposure on public health. Department of Energy monitors the program, and the Environmental Protection Agency have set standards for the public health and safety.

One of the worst and most lasting catastrophes that affect both human life and environmental health for generations and generations are nuclear disasters. One might think that to recover from such a devastation you would not need to endanger more humans, but that is not the case. Untrained casual laborers are sent in to do the dirtiest decontamination work. Up to 96% of the radiation effects them.

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

The government “is putting a lot of people at risk of getting exposed to nuclear waste meaning people are at risk of getting infected” (Radioactive Waste).Nuclear power plants regularly emit low amounts of radiation into the air (Radioactive Waste). People can be exposed to this radiation if they inhale it. The most radiation exposure humans experience is from experimental nuclear explosions or nuclear detonations in combat. The production of defensive nuclear weapons releases high amounts radiation from radioactive materials that are known to elevate health risks. Attempts to handle or dispose of nuclear waste generates radiation over long periods of time. During this time the radiation from this waste can spread by water, air, and even soil. These traces of radiation usually hard to detect and doesn’t cause very harmful effects. Nuclear accidents are the main cause of radiation exposure to highly populated areas. A example of a catastrophic nuclear explosion would be “at a former Soviet nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, that occurred in 1986. Its effects are still seen today” (Radiation). Some of these nuclear power plants experience nuclear leaks which can contaminate the water. In the Hudson river “ Journal News reported that four of twelve fish samples taken from the

It is established that energy cannot be created nor destroyed and it could not be made out of nothing according the law of conservation of energy. The way that science explains the phenomenon of energy conservation is by portraying the conservation of energy as a physical transfer of energy between mediums through various forms such as heat, sound, and light. Since the discovery of fire in the early days of humanity, it can be understood that heat is the most versatile form of energy. On the expense of sacrificial physical matter, heat is produced particularly natural resource such as fossil fuels. While time progresses, the anticipated rate of decrease in fossil fuels has lead to the exploration of prospectively innovative long-term energy supplies. Nevertheless, like fossil fuels, injurious resources have professed many questions regarding the discarding of nuclear waste. This controversy paper will be mainly focusing on the question of whether nuclear waste can be disposed of safely.

It is established that energy cannot be created nor destroyed and it could not be made out of nothing according the law of conservation of energy. The way that science explains the phenomenon of energy conservation is by portraying the conservation of energy as a physical transfer of energy between mediums through various forms such as heat, sound, and light. Since the discovery of fire in the early days of humanity, it can be understood that heat is the most versatile form of energy. On the expense of sacrificial physical matter, heat is produced particularly natural resource such as fossil fuels. While time progresses, the anticipated rate of decrease in fossil fuels has lead to the exploration of prospectively innovative long-term energy supplies. Nevertheless, like fossil fuels, injurious resources have professed many questions regarding the discarding of nuclear waste. This controversy paper will be mainly focusing on the question of whether nuclear waste can be disposed of safely.

Although radioactivity was at first just at the surface, later studies showed that these radioactive elements were absorbed by the soil and that their effects would be long-lasting (Gould 69). Within a short amount of time animals consumed these radioactive plants, and these particles worked their way up the food chain. Soon, not only berry crops in Austria had to be discarded, but also milk supplies in Italy (68, 69). More than twenty European nations received enough fallout to require food restrictions, and 100 million people altered their diets in the ensuing months (Flavin 6, 16). Adding to this paranoia was the fact that even the experts had little knowledge of what was happening. Most nations were unprepared, and many implemented differing safety guidelines for food (15). Some governments outright lied to quell the public’s fear (Gould 70). In the end, millions of people were exposed to unhealthy doses of radiation, and estimates for future deaths from cancer caused by this exposure range as high as one million, with half being fatal (Flavin 18). These are clearly examples of the externalities of a nuclear disaster.

One major unresolved issue arises as the result of using nuclear power: what happens to waste generated in this process. As of right now, the waste is stored on site or in deep geological repositories. However, with what was to be the country’s end all storage site (the Yucca Mountain repository) no longer an option due to recent legislation, long-term storage seems unfeasible. In addition, as more nations move towards reprocessing, there are experts and lawmakers in this country who have been looking into reprocessing the country’s nuclear waste as well. While many experts say that reprocessing is the best solution for freeing the country of the nuclear waste issue, there are others who say that reprocessing is simply too dangerous and

In today’s rapidly-advancing society, the depletion of fossil fuels, our main sources of energy, remains a constant motivator for the U.S. to harness nuclear power. While the fear of resource exhaustion and degradation of the environment encourages us to embrace nuclear energy as a solution, we fail to acknowledge the copious amounts of time and money needed to utilize nuclear energy, the political risks associated with large-scale use, and most importantly, the environmental and mortal consequences that can occur as a result of accidents.

Nuclear power plants have many great benefits. However, there are also many costs that the general public is very concerned with. These costs include nuclear accidents that lead to catastrophic harmful affects towards the public health and the environment when not careful. This is what makes it a very controversial subject on whether a large city, such as Houston, should rely on nuclear power plants for energy. So, what is nuclear energy and how do nuclear power plants work? Nuclear energy is the product of a neutron splitting a uranium atom. When this happens it produces a very large amount of energy. Then three neutrons from splitting apart a uranium atom then split other uranium atoms and produce even more energy. This process becomes self-sustaining as more atoms are split. The energy created is used to generate steam and the steam is able to spin turbines. When these turbines spin, they can create electricity. This process is similar to the traditional processes of forming energy. However, instead of generating steam, the other processes would burn fossil fuels in order spin the turbines. The burning of fossil fuels contributes to the increase of green house gas emissions, and this can be an environmental concern. This is why nuclear energy is considered a “clean” source of energy since it does not produce any greenhouse gasses. Nuclear power plants have actually become more common because of the benefits. In fact, the US has the largest overall generation of