Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima Analysis

As humans we want to have a good life, have a home, maybe a family and feel safe. With the advances in industry such as energy production we can have more luxuries which include heat, lights and running water. However, as technology gets bigger and better there will always be risks that can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Luckily for the United States; we did not have a disastrous outcome with a nuclear power plant such as the 1986’s Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant catastrophe, making, ”the Chernobyl disaster the only level 7 incident on the International Nuclear Event Scales (INES) making it the biggest man-made disaster of all time” (List 25, 2014) . Three Mile Island power plants is located near Middletown Pennsylvania. On March 28, 1979, the plant had a partial meltdown. Even though the Three Mile Island power plant incident did not have any adverse health effects, Three Mile Island had an impact on the nuclear industry development and politically in the United States.

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.

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

Tucker starts off with common counter arguments used by his peers. He mentions that even after the events of nuclear power damage in Japan, other technologies and substitutions would be in some form of risk. By comparing the natural resources that countries use in day to day life to the harm that they have caused, is his way of justifying his opinion on nuclear energy. An example given by William Tucker is how coal mining killed 100,000 workers in the 20th century, which is still killing an average of six people a day in China, but yet coal is used worldwide. Tucker gives a point concerning Uranium fuel rods, “Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely

William does a phenomenal job at getting straight to the point with facts and the opposition of his claim. He states “It’s not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days. The events in Japan have confirmed many of the critics’’ worst predictions.” This statement shows the audience the opposition and his view in just one sentence. William tucker used many statistics, facts, and arguments, to “wow” his audience. He makes an interesting point that I restated earlier, that stood out to me the most, “Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely transformed into energy. But the energy produced by that transformation will be enough to power a city the size of San Francisco for five years.” This quote is one of his many ways of

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

     The protest movement against nuclear power was already big after the Three Mile Island incident, but when the Chernobyl disaster happened, it was rocket-powered. The disaster put a stop to all construction of nuclear power plants nation-wide (Davis 315). The Three Mile Island accident, however, couldn’t have happened at a worse time. Americans need nuclear energy because the country is so oil dependent. But even back in 1979, people recognized that nuclear power needed to be part of our energy source (Readers Digest 72). The incident was responsible for the abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear Energy plant and opened the door to an escalation of protest activity (Davis 315).

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

In “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima” writer William Tucker argues that even though Nuclear power is dangerous and risky compared to coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and solar energy, its more powerful and efficient than any other energy resource. There have been incidents like Fukushima where nuclear power caused destruction, but it doesn’t mean we should stop using it. There have been multiple incidents caused by coal mining and natural gas that has been deadly, but they are still being produced and used. Then why is nuclear power being avoided. Energy produced by hydro, wind and solar sources needs too much space in order to create large volume of energy.

These accidents were chosen because they constitute worst yet valuable examples of what can – and, occasionally, does – go wrong in the nuclear power production realm, and because they shape our understanding of the caused harm. They also embrace a thirty-five year period, during which nuclear power underwent significant regulatory development worldwide, aiming to address growing concerns with respect to short- and long-term effects of such disasters on human health, environmental, social, and economic factors.

William Tucker, journalist for the Wall Street Journal specializing in environment and energy, provides us with intriguing information in his article, "Why I Still Support Nuclear Power Even After Fukushima". Tucker explains his belief that nuclear power is still the most effective means of power with minimal risks, despite the radioactivity associated with nuclear power. Fukushima, a nuclear reactor harboring city in Japan, was devastated by a tsunami after a massive earthquake in 2011. Despite the history of Fukushima, Tucker goes as far as to say, "There are no better alternatives available" in terms of energy resources. Whereas Tucker does indeed bring up compelling points regarding

More than 30 years ago, nuclear energy was poisoned in the eyes of most Americans after the partial reactor meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Anti-nuclear sentiment swelled while construction of new reactors stalled. Fears of nuclear power were further confirmed after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union, and later reaffirmed by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. The development of new nuclear power screeched to a halt after Fukushima, which froze Japan’s nuclear industry and caused hundreds of thousands of Japanese to evacuate the area surrounding the plant.

The current energy sources we consume in the US are in need of a change. Dependence on the fossil fuels of oil and coal are hazardous for two important reasons: their undesirable impact on the environment and it has created the economic boom in the US. There is an agreement between the public and experts that nuclear fission is not the answer. The catastrophic meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant after an earthquake in Japan provides the proof. The introduction of horizontal drilling by the gas industry combined with successful development techniques of hydraulic fracturing has showcased as a solution to solve these problems altogether. We now gain access to the 100 years ' worth of energy in the form of natural gas underneath the

The Chernobyl Disaster was not meant to happen at all, what was supposed to happen was an experiment to see if the reactor’s own electrical needs could be supplied by a freewheeling turbine in the event of a power outage, but the experiment did not go as it was planned. This experiment gone wrong caused so much radiation sickness to the people, which lead to death by sickness, or death by cancer. The people who lived ended up having children with many mutations and disabilities. The Soviet Union wanted to hide the fact this never happened, so they released false information about the disaster to the public not realizing the many after effects this would have on the world, the people and the environment. Nuclear power plants may create a

This paper will address how the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant violated the following NSPE Canons of Engineering Ethics: holding the paramount of safety, health, and welfare of the public, and avoiding deceptive acts. The misjudgment and underperformance by the engineers during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake caused a large uproar of rejection towards nuclear power in Japan, which could have been prevented if the engineers had not misconducted before the events.