Nuclear Waste Essay

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.

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

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.

This source is clearly invalid for countless reasons, the most prevalent being that it is the opinion of a single individual expressed in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. Another notable flaw is the lack of grammar skills and frequent misspellings of common words. The author, Ms. Rose M Christy, is in adamant opposition to nuclear energy. She demonstrates poor argumentative skills in addition to weak wording, causing her letter to lose any significant

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.

Muller does this by acknowledging the counter arguments of the “anti-nuke” viewpoint. Muller does not talk over his audience’s heads, instead he demonstrates that he understands the fears they have concerning nuclear waste. The latter is clear in the first six opening paragraphs of his article, where Muller touches base on the fear as to why many Americans are reluctant to the storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain facility. Such fears include the amount of time that it takes for such waste to become radioactively safe for humans, as well as the prospect of leakage from the storage facility. Moreover while Muller presents these fears he addresses every single one through the use of basic statistics illustrating why such unfounded fears are nothing more than obstacles preventing Americans from putting into effect a logical solution, instead of continuing to look for a completely different one. For example in his third paragraph Muller acknowledges the enormous amount of tax money a waste facility will need to operate “The cost of the facility is expected to reach $100 billion, with hundreds of billions of dollars more in operating costs” (TS 207). Muller refutes this argument in paragraph 17 where he describes the type of precautions the government has taken in order to secure the waste by showing “concrete containers being dropped

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.

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.

“A tiny speck of plutonium-239, as little as three millionths of a gram, can cause lung cancer. One pound of plutonium-239 contains enough specks to kill nine billion people instantly” (Pringle 26). Plutonium-239 is a human-made element, also known as the most dangerous substance on earth. As a by-product of uranium fission, plutonium-239 is created by generating electricity from nuclear sources. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is hazardous and threatening to health. The use of nuclear energy should be banned as evidenced by the number of accidents, health effects, and global impact.

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

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.

Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a

In the modern society, energy is considered one of our most valuable resources. Humanity has managed to tap several sources of energy and utilize it for their daily activities. Almost everything in the society is dependent on energy; otherwise, humanity would cease to exist. The sources of energy vary from firewood, solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The sources vary depending on the amount of energy that can be harnessed. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject when it comes to energy matters. Theorists argue that the world’s sources of energy are being depleted at such high rates, that the future will not favor humanity. Richard Watson establishes this ethical argument in his work known as Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics: he argues that any ethics should be based on the survival of humanity (Watson 245). Therefore, an inquiry that should be made in line with energy and ethics should consider the question; is modernization worth killing humanity? Nuclear power sources provide such high energy that can power industries and sustain industrial processes for longer times. The problem with the nuclear power energy is the danger it poses to the society and humanity as a whole (Ingram 37). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia is a good example relative to the effects of nuclear power and the environment. This essay seeks to analyze and evaluate the ethical issues raised by the Chernobyl nuclear plant as source of energy

The problem with nuclear waste is getting worse everyday while we try and find a solution to dispose of the waste properly, however there are some people who think that the nuclear waste project for waste disposal is not that serious and it does not have an affect on the environment, but they are wrong because our lack of care for proper disposal of nuclear waste is having a tole on the environment where the waste is buried and the life forms around these waste sites.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?