Nuclear Power Is Too Dangerous and Should Be Phased Out Essay

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.

On Saturday, 26 April 1986 a reactor at the Chernobyl Power Plant near Pripyat, Russia has a sudden power surge which caused mass damage. The Power Plant tried for immediate

The Nuclear energy path can lead to gargantuan devastation, colossal costs, and possible terrorism threats, hence Nuclear Energy should be abandoned.

Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island — all known as major nuclear power disasters. Nuclear power might be a good source of power, but in the long run it can be a real hazard and should be banned. If we rely on nuclear power to be our primary power source, it will cause major problems to humans and the environment. Nuclear power is hard to dispose of, expensive to run, and the reactors can easily be disrupted and cause the release of massive amounts of radiation.

The use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons is forcing humankind, and indeed the whole ecosystem, to participate in a particularly cruel and totally uncontrolled experiment. The United States can not afford continuing to raid the environment with long-lived radioactive materials that are scattered to the wind and embedded in our soil, exposing large populations, and foisting health impacts - such as: “high instances of infant mortality and more than six thousand cases of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents according to a 2008 UN report” - (6) on unsuspecting future generations who have no choice in this matter. With this in mind, nuclear energy also puts out more carbon dioxide, puts out more air pollutants, enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up than real renewable energy systems, namely wind, solar, geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power and, the radiation exposure will force animals and insects out of their homes, or possibly kill them as to what happened in Chernobyl. Moreover, nuclear power enhances nuclear weapons proliferation. (Ted Talk) Due to the fact, that the people haven’t yet came up a solution to where to store spent energy. Moreover, short- and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel has been a challenge for the industry and policymakers. Spent fuel, if not disposed of properly, could contaminate water supplies or be used by terrorists to create a dirty bomb. This

Another reason why nuclear power is bad, it can be used to create nuclear weapons. nuclear power can be turn into nuclear weapon. In Article 3 in the last paragraph states “In the same way U.S nuclear power plants have not eliminated the threat of nuclear weapons despite 20 years.” Just because we have not seen nuclear weapons in the past 20 years does not mean that they can not make a comeback. Moreover, “Spent fuel, if not disposed of properly could contaminate water supplies or be used by terrorist to create a dirty bomb”(1,8). Terrorist could use this against us causing a lot of damage. Lately with all the craziness happening around us it will not be the best decision.

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

Therefore, nuclear energy is not as bad as it is made out to be. Should the world convert completely to nuclear energy? Absolutely not, there are

In 2013, a study conducted by NASA found that nuclear energy has prevented around 1.8 million deaths; nuclear energy ranks last in death per energy unit generated per year. While nuclear waste is really toxic, it’s usually stored somewhere. The toxic byproducts of fossil fuels are pumped into the air we breathe everyday. So just by reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned, countless cases of cancer or lung disease and accidents in coal mines have been avoided. If we can choose between lots of dangerous stuff being put into a deep hole and lots and lots of dangerous stuff being pumped into the atmosphere, the former seems more logical. Nuclear energy feels way more dangerous though, single catastrophic events burn into our memory while coal and oil kill silently. Another reason why nuclear energy is a good idea, it reduces Co2. Nuclear energy is arguably way less harmful to the environment in terms of climate change than fossil fuels, our main source of energy. Since 1976 about 64 Giga Tonnes of greenhouse emissions have not been pumped out thanks to nuclear energy and by the mid twenty first century, that could amount to an additional 82240 Giga Tonnes. Humanities energy consumption is rising steadily, according to U.S. government protections, China alone will add the equivalent of a new 600 megawatt coal plant every ten days for the next ten years. China already burns 4,000 tons of coal each year; coal is cheap, abundant,

I’ll start with the radiation problem within nuclear power plants. Nuclear radiation is an enormous problem for living organisms on land or in the water. In a nuclear power plant there are power reactors called breeders. These breeders produce plutonium, which is fissionable. It is a by-product of the chain reaction produced by the splitting of the atoms. If this element were to be introduced to wildlife, humans, or anything living it would harm the recipient. The high cost is another key component to the movement of not using nuclear energy. Power plants require high amounts of support and funding, such as wealthy investors, in order to produce large sums of the product. Therefore, small third world countries that are poor and struggling economically, would not have the payment necessary in order to gain the usage of nuclear power plants. Four years ago, in 2013, eight contracts for nuclear power plants were cancelled due to the immense expenses. Also, nuclear power plants take a lengthened chunk of time to be fully developed, consequently at that time, the country that spent their money on the power plant would be driven to manage without a large portion of their currency to the extent of five to ten years to earn a profit. Even, if everything turns out to be on schedule, what if the people in the area were to refuse the

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.

The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.

The radioisotopes found in the nuclear wastes have a long life. This means that they may stay in the atmosphere in some ways or the other. In essence, this makes the soil and water to be contaminated. The mixed wastes cause chemical reactions and may lead to dangerous complications. The wastes are usually buried deep in the earth surface. However, the residues can be used to make deadly weapons of mass destruction. As much as nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, it is still prone to accidents. Some measures have been put in place to prevent accidents. However, the risk of more recent Fukushima has ben an associate to nuclear energy. Smaller radiations can leak and may have devastating effects. The symptoms are inclusive of vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and fatigue. On one way, it may solve the energy problems but we must be careful not to solve one problem and create another problem (Durrani &

Accidents with nuclear power plants are one of the most problematic side of nuclear with the public especially since the accident at Fukushima even if accidents of this magnitude are rare ( Chernobyl and Fukushima are the only on this scale), it is true that the result are always impressive and that the incident are in fact disasters.

Nuclear power is a complicated issue because some people think that it is safer for the environment and is possibly better for us humans, but this argument is misguided because it is actually pretty dangerous, expensive, and has and issue with proper waste management. I am writing to tell you that we should NOT use nuclear power.