Intergenerational Challenges In Stephen Gardiner's 'A Perfect Moral Storm'

The issue of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from atomic vitality is to a great degree risky and it must be deliberately cared for a few thousand years (10'000 years as indicated by United States Environmental Protection Agency measures).

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.

Mental illnesses continues to go unnoticed and undiagnosed due to the lack of information in the youth of the 21st century, which may further on lead to violence in an individual's life. The discovery of mental illnesses began with the Greek physician, Hippocrates, where he attempted to separate religion and superstition from the study of medicine. As mental illnesses continued to evolve throughout the years, it allowed for an interpersonal setback in the mentally ill’s life. In the twenty first century, recent shootings began to increase expediently and this caused numerous stereotypes, violent experiences and more within the mentally ill individuals. The pressure continues to influence mental illness and violence globally and has created an unsafe reality for the youth.

Climate change is an issue that affects all life on Earth and is a major concern among researchers across a variety of fields. There is quite little argument against the possibility of mass disaster if human beings continue to consume fossil fuels in the same way we have been since the late 1700s (i.e. the Industrial Revolution). To mitigate the severity of climate change, many different courses of action have been suggested. Dale Jamieson discusses two of these in his article Ethics, Public Policy and Global Warming, and these strategies are what this paper will be focusing on.

For many years, the government has been faced with the mounting dilemma that is 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 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.

As the millenium approaches, we are faced with the problems created by our technological advances. Everyday we are forced to see the results, from acid rain to polluted beaches. But there is one problem in particular that will probably out-live our generation and the generation which has created it. If properly contained and monitored, it has little affect on us and our environment. However, once it is free of it's containment, it is a destructive and deadly force. This problem is nuclear waste.

Some argue the lack of a permanent, safe storage site for nuclear waste is reason enough to oppose proposals in President Bush's energy plan to speed licensing of new nuclear power plants and extend the operating licenses of existing plants. As Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says, "Until we can figure out what to do with the waste, we shouldn't make any more of it (Macfarlane, 2015)." But those who tout the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear energy argue a safe, permanent storage site has already been found and only politics has prevented its opening. Others point to changing methods of nuclear power generation that could ultimately reduce waste

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.

Nuclear fuel has been providing energy to the world for around sixty years, and it is the second most used energy source, first being fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is closely chained to the invention of the atomic bomb and is in fact, nuclear fission and/or fusion. The problem with nuclear energy is that while it can provide energy without air pollutants, there is nowhere to put the radioactive nuclear waste. With the spent nuclear fuel, we currently dump it in places relatively far from people or we reprocess it. However there is more to that than meets the eye. "Dumping" is not the best method for dealing with nuclear waste, the best way is to reprocess the nuclear waste because it recovers a portion of reusable energy that can be recycled back into the plant, recovers fuel that can be reused for other purposes and also helps reduce the effects on the environment.

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).

The waste material generated in nuclear plants has radioactivity of dangerous level leveland ; it remains above safe limit for a long period of time and thus is a health hazard. Its safe disposal, which is essential to prevent radioactive pollution, is a challenging task. Also the disposed radioactive waste is required to be guarded for a long period (till its radioactivity level comes down to a safe limit) against in order to prevent against going in wrong hands.

Global Warming is the number one concern threatening the very existence of humans and everything within the environment today. The human race is to blame for the destruction of the natural world. The environmental issues that are threatening all human and non-human life today, started in the industrial revolution and the discovery of oil The need to improve the quality of life resulted in the construction of factories to mass produce products for consumers. These factories were powered by fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. The combustion of these fossil fuels emitted great quantities of pollutants that remain in the Earths atmosphere to this day and is the number one cause of global warming. However, in ethics one cannot evaluate just one thing. In ethics, as in nature, everything is connected to everything else (Partridge, 1998).

Nuclear power is a very cost-effective form of energy but has many safety concerns involved with this form of energy. The by-product of this reaction is very radioactive and highly dangerous to the public. “Radioactive materials emit penetrating, ionizing radiation that can injure living tissues.”(Nuclear Energy). The government has not yet found a suitable way of dealing with this waste. The only way to store this waste is in large containers deep underneath the ground that are monitored. “Many nuclear wastes remain radioactive for thousands of years, beyond the span of any human institution.”(Nuclear Energy). There was an incident in America in the 1970’s near Harrisburg PA where a plant emitted radioactive particles into the air due to a partial melt down. Due to public complaints about the hazards of the plants they have ceased to build any other plants. The probabilities of a catastrophe to happen is very low but the amount of damage it could produce would be great. Therefore the government does not invest in the further research of this energy source.

The current management strategies are based around ensuring that no significant environmental damage will occur over tens of thousands of years after the wastes have been disposed off. The three current principles for radioactive waste

     Another driving force behind the improper disposal of hazardous waste was the Mafia. “Organized crime controlled the solid waste disposal industry through the major trade associations, the relevant Teamster locals, and the connivance of political cronies”(Block, 1985, p.102). The Mafia has the ability to buy public officials with ease. This and their scare tactics led many EPA officials to do nothing about the illegal activities that took place. “Imagine an EPA inspector or state regulatory agent trying to deal with firms controlled by the members of the most powerful crime syndicates in the country”(Block, 1985, p.103).