Arguments Against 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.

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).

First, as mentioned above, failure to mention reactors design flaws led to distrust in the infrastructure of the Soviet Union. While many scientists and researchers such as Valeri Legasov had noticed that there were issues with the reactors design prior to the disaster, and mentioned so in personal journals, the discovery of their failure to speak up lead to the questioning of Soviet leadership [5]. Additionally, these issues became worse upon the discovery of KGB classified documents that discussed various issues with the construction of the Chernobyl plant between 1971 and 1988 [7]. These compounding issues identified flaws

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

The disaster had more of an effect on eastern Europe’s nuclear experimentation and use but “While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants” (World Nuclear Association). Since the Chernobyl disaster was majorly caused by human error and under qualified scientists, to work with nuclear reactors today you need to be insanely qualified. Since the accident, Soviet-designed reactors’ safety has improved greatly, even in smaller ways. Automatic shutdown mechanisms now work faster, and other safety mechanisms have been sped up. Even new equipment has been installed such as automated inspection equipment. Several scientist and reporters have even said an accident like Chernobyl is virtually impossible with today’s technology (World Nuclear Association).

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

Along with the health risks that a nuclear waste site causes, there are also frequent earth quakes in the area that has been proposed and it is flood land. This poses a threat to not only the people in the area but the surrounding environment too. The radioactive waste would contaminate the water and the ground if there was a flood or earth quake and because Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years none of us will be alive when the area is no longer

Today, a considerable amount of energy is provided by nuclear energy. The technology is well organized and developing every passing day and as a result the cost of operation is falling. Using radioactive resources to produce energy generates waste. Waste that contains radioactive materials is called nuclear waste. The secure and environmentally-friendly disposal of nuclear waste is a crucial aspect of nuclear power programs. [1]

Highly radioactive waste disposal has become one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear technology. As the amount of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from defense-related processing plants has continued to mount, the issue has become increasingly contentious and politicized.2 The politicization of this issue is especially evident in the site selection process of a permanent national repository for the disposal of highly radioactive waste.

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

There have been lots of nuclear accident around the world. One of the accident that had a major impact on the world was the Chernobyl disaster. The disaster took place on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. The disaster was caused by a reaction explosion induced by design faults and staff application errors. The accident took place in the course of scheduled tests to check the power supply mode in the event of external sources loss. Even after 10 days, explosions and ejections of radioactive substances continued. The release of radiation and radioactive substance polluted the places within 30 km of Chernobyl, and those areas have been closed for a long period of

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.

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.

For many years, the United States government has been faced with the mounting dilemma being caused by nuclear waste. This radioactive material is a byproduct of nuclear reactors, hospital, processing plants, and research facilities. Since the use of nuclear power began, the wastes have been transported and kept from the public successfully, but there are a large percentage of people that believe this industry needs to come to a halt until a solution has been devised for its disposal. There is a major concern that the long term containment plants and current burial grounds are not adequate solutions; this is due to the risk of potential environmental disturbances. When these substances are not disposed of properly, they can cause a multiplicity of dangers such as cancer and the destruction of the ecosystem. The most effective methods for the elimination of nuclear waste are building more reliable burial sites, turning the byproduct into electricity, transmuting these toxins into glass that can be handled normally and constructing launchers to send the most noxious substances into outer space.

The nuclear power objectors call nuclear waste into questions, and the nuclear defenders argue that it is not a big thing. They argue that the technologies are developing, and through reprocessing technology 97% of raw materials could be recycled to produce more electricity. Left over three percents can be safely stored. If a typical French family spends nuclear energy in their entire life, then the nuclear waste is only size of golf ball. This is possible, because one gram of Uranium could produce the amount of electricity as one tone of fossil fuel, and also future technology may reduce more nuclear waste or eliminate them all (Comby, 2010).