'Nuclear Energy' By William Tucker

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

Should nuclear energy be used? Throughout the article “Nowhere to go”, the author objectively reviews the use of nuclear energy, using the text and graphics to provide details that demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Nevertheless, the consequences of using nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. One of these consequences is that working with nuclear energy can cause many health problems. The text states, “Dangers include radiation sickness, cancers, and other health problems. High level radioactive waste can present hazards ‘for a million years or more,’ Kamps says.” This means that using nuclear energy can cause health problems for future generations.

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).

William Tucker, author of "Why I still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima" explains, "It's not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days"(Tucker 228). Tucker questions why there is use of harmful nuclear energy when there are better technologies available; in contrast, he then provides examples that prove there are no better alternatives and other energy technologies are equally not without risk. In a five year period, uranium rods sit in a reactor core and transform six ounces of its original weight into energy and as a result obtains the ability to power a large city similarly to the size of San Francisco for five years (Tucker 228). Tucker shows how natural gas, wind mills, solar collectors, and hydroelectric dams are

“Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima” written by William Tucker, nuclear energy is still the best option for the contemporary society we live in today. Tucker goes on to explicate “The events in Japan have confirmed many of the critics’ worst predictions” (Tucker 228). Tucker then examines two other nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, & Chernobyl. Tucker acknowledges that there is still a very serious threat of contamination that is widespread. Then he gives some facts to show that the other industries have had bad accidents also. In one incident 130 people were killed in a natural gas accident that occurred in Cleveland in 1944, the accident leveled a whole neighborhood. Tucker

“No one in the United States has become seriously ill or has died because of any kind of accident at a civilian nuclear power plant.” says Joe Barton. This is a highly controversial topic where there are many conflicting opinions. Some people believe that these plants are too dangerous to exist while other think that they are the edge of tomorrow. When analyzing it from a purely statistical and analytical standpoint, nuclear energy is clearly worth the possible risks they pose.

According to Nuclear Energy, one bad side to nuclear energy is radioactive waste, this waste happens when the nuclear reactors needs to dispose waste and these wastes are extremely hazardous. The waste can emit radiation over maybe ten thousand years and it can contaminate the sands and the water. In addition, nuclear accidents are a big negative because when a power plant blows up or has an accident, the area around it and more will be contaminated by radiation. To take a case in point, a place called Chernobyl, Russia had a nuclear accident in April 26 ,1986 and it left the city deserted and now it’s a wasteland which no one can even live or even get close. Moreover, another negative side is nuclear radiation, uranium contains radiation main reason for cancer, and when workers work a long time with radiation it will affect them. Effects of radiation is losing of hair, diarrhea, fever, and fatigue. Thus, the negative side on using uranium in nuclear power plants are the nuclear waste that emits when nuclear reactors disposed of waste, when a nuclear accident happens it doesn’t harm one person it harms a very wide amount of people and the area like Chernobyl, and then radiation uranium emits radiation and when workers work with uranium for a very long time it will affect them and cause many

Atomic energy production is a dangerous technology that must be replaced by eco-friendly energy production methods. Atomic energy production relies upon radioactive materials used as fuel to generate electricity; these fuels are highly toxic and volatile substances that are lethal to all forms of life. In the event of a technical malfunction, or natural disaster, these dangerous substances can escape into the environment where they will remain disruptive for centuries. The nuclear power plant at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan is one such example of this, but alarmingly, many nuclear power plants are built along geological fault lines, in tsunami regions, and other dangerous weather zones all across the globe. The potential for widespread devastation to the environment is real. For this reason alone nuclear energy should be phased out entirely and replaced by a safe alternative.

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.

Nuclear power plants are one of the main ways to gather energy, but is it the best and safest way and cleanest way to get energy? Abe gilbert says, “For now I will simply state that Nuclear Energy can never be clean or safe. Look at the hundreds of thousands of cubic tons of nuclear waste that we have no safe place to store.”(Abe Gilbert 4).Nuclear power plants are not, despite of what other people say, the cleanest and safest way to get energy. Nuclear plants are harmful to the environment, are not as durable (long lasting) as other ways of getting energy, and they become potential targets for terrorist who want to destroy the United States. People may argue that nuclear power plants are clean and are safe, but are

1. Your WOTA instructor will have provided you with details on the event and what they expect for proof of attendance. It would be a good idea to have this review form handy so that you know the questions you’ll be answering. Give yourself enough time to get seated and settled before the performance.

Fossil fuels have been the main source of energy for many years. Nevertheless, because of the pollution they cause, people are seeking new sources of energy every day. As many believe, nuclear power is the power of the future. However, while many people are excited about nuclear power, there are certain drawbacks. Although there are possible benefits to nuclear power, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

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.

On this assignment we are going to research all energy sources and their drawbacks, we are also going to explore on some the negative ramifications that even the clean hydropower have, additionally we are going to weigh those against the possible consequences of developing nuclear power, a controversial alternative to fossil fuels. We will discuss the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in drawing conclusions about risk versus reward of nuclear energy use.

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.